Talk:Jayendra Saraswathi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Archive
Archives
  • April 2005 – February 2006

Contents

[edit] First header

(The header and this comment were added on 18 Dec 05 so as to move the header box to the top o fthe page. Imc 10:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

Changes to this page were made on the following basis;

- Cleanup and grammar, several minor changes.

- Much of the article was PoV. His status and that of the Kanchi matha are both disputed (as is the claim that the matha has been in existence long enough to have 69 acharyas). The following items were removed;

"... and is a seer of great reverence to the people of India."
"Also a large scale slander campaign was undertaken in the local press following the arrest. "
"As the drama unfolds, it becomes clearer every day that the case was foisted on him. His imprisonment is now largely being seen as an attempt to denigrate him and the math .In the eyes of most hindus he holds a position equivalent to the Pope ."

- He was not accused of a murder, but of instigating one.

- The Supreme court did not grant him bail on 10th January. It ordered on this date that he be released on providing bail to a magistrate. He did this and was released on 11th January. Ref. http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jan112005/i17.asp

Imc 04:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming

I propose to move the content of the article to the current redirect name of Jayendra Saraswati. This is for consistency, and because this is the more commonly used spelling, and because it is phonetically correct (or at least better).

Imc 04:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point of View

It seems to me that this article has lost most of its NPOV, and needs a complete rewrite. It now includes speculative material on the motives of Jayalalitha, on the role of Christian missionaries, and allegations of media bias. Imc 10:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


In reply, I invite you to see the following aspects as well apart from your point of view:

This article in the recent days has included authentic information :-

1. On the trial by media, supported by the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgement.

2. On the absence of evidence of the allegations by the Police, supported by the Supreme Court of India's judgement dated 10th January 2005.

3. On the foisting of cases, supported by the Madras High Court's judgement dated 28th January 2005.

4. On the illegal freezing of Bank accounts of various charitable organisations supported by the Shankara Matham, supported by the Madras High Court's judgement dated 11th February 2005.

5. On the misuse of Government machinery and the Police so as to "somehow or other convict" the Shanakrarchaya, supported by the Supreme Court's judgement dated 26th October 2005.

6. On the Jayalalithaa Government's application to the Supreme Court to virtually ex-communicate the Shankaracharya from the Southern States and its own withdrawal of the application after months: the Supreme Court, in its order dismissing it, has expressed its "surprise" over this action.

7. On various matters, the Chief Minister Jayalalithaa had reveresed all her earlier actions after the Parliamentary elections, and these include the two legislations that were passed before and withdrawn after the elections. All these are facts and there is no surmise or presumption.


Thus the article now carries only the factual position on the issue of arrest and the misuse of Government machinery as these are very much decided by the various decisions of the Higher Courts in India. These judgements are final in nature and cannot be disputed. The Head of the Government cannot escape the responsibility for the "misuse of Government machinery", as judged by the Supreme Court of India, itself. I donot think that anyone would conclude that the inclusion of the various Courts' decisions amounts to removal of the "Neutral Point of View".

The links to the official sites of these Courts giving the complete text has also been provided. The readers are welcome to go through these texts and arrive at an informed decision on the motive or otherwise of the Head of the Tamilnadu Government under scruitiny by the various Courts as above.

On a neutral analysis of these judgements, one would conclude that it is a case of 'trial by media' and 'persecution'.

If even after this explanation, if you have any other views, kindly let me know.

Appiah, 13th November 2005.

I'm not disputing any specific item in the list above, since I've not checked them. But there are still many things that are POV, e.g.
  • - such statements as "vested interests in the media almost conducted a trial by media,", something that I'm sure that all the journalists involved would dispute.
  • - the suggestion that Christian missionaries are responsible for the matter is controversial, and it seems to me that at the least an inline reference for very specific evidence should be provided with this assertion.
  • -Jayalalita is not the subject of this article, and such matters as her disputes with state workers don't seem to be directly relevant to this article, and are only there to put opponents of Jayendra Saraswati in a bad light.
  • - Jayendra Saraswati is not God, and in normal English usage in Wikipedia, he should not be referred to as He and Him.
Imc 23:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


1. I am thankful that you are not disputing the various Courts' judgements.

2. I did see the earlier corrections made by you sometime in April 2005. You had removed the portions indicating ‘great reverence to the Shankaracharya, reference to large scale slander campaign in the local media, and the fact that as days progress, the picture emerged that it was a foisted case’. The wikipedia web article continued in the same position until the Supreme Court's decision.

3. Now that the Supreme Court has clearly decided that there had been misuse of the government machinery, the correct position must be reflected, in order to maintain the neutrality of the issue.

4. While so, the Head of the Government, being Jayalalithaa, is responsible for the misuse of Government machinery against Him and thus is very relevant to the living times of Shankaracharya. As a matter of fact, anytime in future, the Shankaracharya cannot be discussed without a reference to her, as the Shankaracharya has complained about the misuse of Government machinery by her to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has decided this question in His favour - just as the persecution of the Jews cannot be discussed without a reference to Hitler and his actions. Her actions before and after the 2003 National Elections, as a whole have to be seen in order to understand the real import of the reasons for the misuse of Government machinery. Any reader in posterity would not understand the reasons for the misuse, if the whole lot of events are not listed. There is no intention to put any opponent of Jayendra Saraswati in bad light. I do not consider anyone as the opponent of Shankaracharya. On the other hand, if there is an opponent and the opponent has done certain deeds, they have to be listed in order to arrive at neutrality. As otherwise, the Shankaracharya would be put in “bad light” as it remained on the wikipedia web site until the referred corrections were made.

5. The world renowned Human Rights Attorney Ramsey Clarke had once said ““With the Mass media saturating the public with perceptions that come from very slim contact with actuality and are heavily influenced by desire and prejudice, they demonise. Demonisation is the most dangerous form of prejudice. Once you call some thing evil it is easy to justify anything you might do to harm that evil. Evil has no rights, it has no human dignity, and it has to be destroyed.”

6. The Shankaracharya was systemically demonised by the media and the Government by misuse of its machinery, with the intent to keep Him in the prison until death and deny the basic human rights. Even after the Supreme Court granted bail, after observing that there was no prima facie case against Him, the state Government under Jayalalithaa even went to the extent of asking for the virtual ex-communication out of the entire South India by an application to the Supreme Court and later offered to withdraw it very late after the Notice was issued by the Supreme Court. These are facts recorded in the Supreme Court’s orders. While so, how can one leave a reference to Jayalalithaa and her misuse of the Government machinery in this subject, just because one would want to picture her in “good light”.

7. I request you to see one more point of view. Whenever human rights are violated as blatantly as this, we have the duty to place the facts before the public at least to ensure that these are not repeated, by the same person, or anyone who takes the cue from that person. In this situation we cannot be defending anyone who violates basic tenets of human rights. If the expression of the factual position would put anyone in bad light, that is not the intention. The intention is that human right violations should not go unnoticed. Our personal likes and dislikes for a person must be shelved at this point of time, in order to arrive at neutrality, as this neutrality is vital for human dignity.

8. As to your presumption that the media would dispute the article, the various Courts’ judgements will answer for themselves.

9. The article does not state that the Christian missionaries were responsible for this action. It just refers to the constructive deeds of the Shankaracharya in taking care of the needs of poor, his attempt at peace building and removal of caste based bias. I shall look for some links in evidence of this and revert.

10. I have followed the British way of referring to the Holy Men with Capital letter. If Wikipedia does not follow this in its domain, I am open for correction in this site.

11. If still you have any contrary view, please do let me know. I have an open mind.

Appaiah, 14th November 2005.

Thank you for your comments. It may be relevant to included all the material you quote above, as quotes, or rewritten for clarity, providing it does not become repetitious. However, the tone of the article is clearly partisan, in many respects. For instance, referring to Jayalalitha's elected government as tyrannous is clearly PoV, unless you are quoting a notable source.
If the article was not meant to imply that Christian missionaries were behind Jayalalitha's actions, then it was quite unnecessary to mention them a second time in this misleading context;
The Christian Missionaries perceived that the Shankaracharya Sri Jayendra Saraswati was behind the earlier move to ban religious conversion by force and inducement and the ban of animal offering in temples. Therefore she foisted a murder case on the Shankaracharya with a view on the forthcoming elections to the State Assembly.
I don't believe that there is any 'British' convention of referring to holy men with capital letters. The only pronouns to which the initial capital applies, are to the first person (I), and to God. There is only sometimes a convention of followers of any particular holy men using capital letters for their own leader, but it is not appropriate here.
Thanks. Imc 16:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It is really irnoical that Deepk insistst on capital D for his own name but says capitals of Jayendra Saraswati are not necessary. What an edict?- vkram

[edit] Article biased towards jeyandra sarawati

i feel the article is not neutral and is slightly biased to improve the image of jayandra sarawati.I agree with appiah in unnecessary capitalisation in references to jeyandra saraswati.The page should also include information about sankararaman's letters and jeyandrar's intolerance to these letters. Deepak

This article has left out an important episode in the life of Jayendra Saraswati. In the year 1986, after taking the 'vow' of Chaturmasya, he left his abode at midnight and was absconding for a fortnight. Later on, he was found at Talacauvery in Karnataka. This episode created a furore in the media and religious communities. This was considered unusual for a sanyasi to do, especially since he was supposed to keep his vow not to stir from his place during the two months period of chaturmasya as per convention. This also cuased several comments to be made by other Shankaracharyas about the genuineness of the Kanchi mutt and its historicity. This article should have also included a line on the doubts about the historical claim of the Kanchi mutt being so many centuries' old. A.Ramasubramanian

NPov tag can be removed.

The discussion on the age of Adi Shankara is not relevant on this topic. There are archeological evidences in the form of epigraphy available in large numbers in and around Kanchipuram as to the claim of the age of Adi Shankara and his establishing the Kamakoti Peetham in Kanchipuram. These however are not matters for a discussion on this topic. In as much as the issues debated by Imc have been removed, the article can be removed from the NPoV tag. Appiah, 2nd December 2005


I agree that the article is better than it was, though a few capital pronouns still survive. But not all PoV points have been addressed, I only listed a few examples previously. A few more now;
  • references are needed now for some statements such as in the paragraph starting The Chief Minister of the Tamilnadu J. Jayalalithaa was his follower and used to visit him often.
  • references still have PoV language.
  • references have been selected to favour certain viewpoints, for instance this reference, http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=27302, is factually incorrect in that it states that the supreme court granted him bail. This is despite the fact that it is the Supreme Court's website. Dig up the original judgement of January which was previously correctly reported in the article through the Deccan Herald, and is now also on the SC website.
  • older and/or critical references have been removed. Old news stories may be out of date, but are still valid records of what happened, and what was reported.
I agree that the age of the matha is not relevant here. However, the point made previously about Jayendra Saraswati's appearance at Talakaveri is relevant. Imc 11:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
have made edits addressing some of the concerns addressed above. have re-introduced references to articles in established media outlets on jayendra saraswathi, as useful for background info as well as to serve as source for some of the statements in the article. these were removed earlier. if there is dispute about the accuracy of these articles, pls discuss it on talk before removing these links. in the absense of well-known sources, it is very hard for an international audience to evaluate the content of the article, and retaining only relatively unknown sources which support the shankaracharya will lead to pov issues. thanks, Doldrums 14:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

1. It is only the Supreme Court that granted the bail. Para 16 of the order reads "The petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengleput." The role of the CJM, Chingleput is only procedural. If there is anything contrary stated in the Deccan Herald article under reference, then such article is wrong. The Supreme Court (SC) is the Apex judicial authority in India and SC cannot be seen as though SC recommends bail and the lower Court grants the bail. The link to this SC judgement has been provided alongside. When a Court judgement is available and a link has been provided therefor, then any news report or material that shows contrary view to facts arrived at in the judgement must not be allowed on record. For if it is so allowed, that would amount to contempt of Court. Therefore, the removal of the Deccan Herald news report is in order.

2. Similarly, if there are any older news reports which contained any view contrary to the facts recorded by the Supreme Court then they also must not be allowed to linger and that was the reason these were removed.

3. The very idea of the Courts sitting over judgement is to establish facts. The judgements of the Courts are final in nature and the news reports have little value as these reports generally are of one sided versions, given only by the prosecution, without the due process of neutralisation. The neutral view emanates only from the judgements of the Courts and they overrule any of the news reports or for that matter in any forum. In matters of this nature, only in the absence of the Court judgements, reliance can be placed on the news reports and once the judgements are available, then reliance must be placed on the judgements alone and not on the news reports.

4. Definitely, the Indian High Courts' and Supreme Court's judgements are not only more authentic and final but also more dependable than the BBC's news reports and BBC's web site. Therefore the links to BBC's site that gave highly biased versions were deleted as these contained point of view contrary to the ones established by the judgements of Madras and Andhra Pradesh High Courts and the Supreme Court of India.

5. As to what happend in the past including the arrest and the charges, the judgements do contain the arguments for and against, including the discussion on Sankararaman letters and the absence of animosity, to which a reader referred herein above, all these have been dealt with more authentically by the judgement dated 10th January 2005 of the Supreme Court, for which a link has been provided to the official site of the SC. A more neutral view can certainly not be given by the newspaper reports, which do not contain the version of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi.

Appaiah, 2nd December 2005.

appaiah, can u point out exactly what statements in the bbc & frontline articles are contradicted by court findings? i also want to point out that if a court and any other source contradict each other, wiki policies do not mean that we automatically accept the court's statement as "true" and the other as "false". each will have to be reported in the wiki.
to my knowledge, there are no "contempt" issues here. a convicted man, for instance, can continue to claim innocence long after the court convicts him.
finally, i must point to what i said above, about providing established media outlets as sources in an article whose contents are somewhat obscure for an international audience. thanks Doldrums 06:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Doldrums. Imc 16:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the Religious Guru is nominated based on the age old caste system must have an entry here. Jayendra Saraswathi is considered as a Pope of Hinduism in the sense that he upholds the original tenets of hinduism where certain people are considered as avatar of god and certain other people are considered as untouchables. By choosing his successor from a particular caste, the institution headed by him work as a protector of the opperessive caste system.

Imc and Doldrums,

1. All the earlier Press Reports to which the links were provided including the BBC, Rediff and Fronline articles contained only the Police version. The Supreme Court in its order dated 10th January 2005, has discussed in detail all these allegations and found that there was no substance in the claims of the Police on these accounts. Therefore the contrary view contained in these articles is near total or at least substantial. If one were to list them all, then this note itself will be larger than the articles. Already it is one such. As the link to the Court decisions were given long ago, any reader could have read them through and understood the contrary views contained in them.

2. In civilised society, the Courts' decisions are accepted as final and this is firmed up by various treaties between the Nations and the various UN declarations, under which the citizens of the World respect the sovereignty of various member Nations including the Courts of such Nations and the judicial pronouncements.

3. The case of ‘a convicted man holding out that he is not guilty’ and the case of an encyclopaedia (wikipedia in this case) holding out that ‘its policy does not accept the Courts' judgements as final as to facts established and accepted therein’ are not on the same plane. I am not sure if Wikipedia's principle is as stated by you. You may cite an authentic and official source of wikipedia concurring with your views as to its policy on not accepting the Supreme Court of India's judgements as final as to the facts found by it. Based on your producing such authentic and official source, I shall suitably take it up with wikipedia as to their policy on the issue.

4. The need to accept the judicial pronouncements emanates from the fact that the judicial pronouncements are neutral in nature by the very process by which they are evolved by hearing all the concerned parties. On the contrary the media reports are not so and particularly none of the reports that you have cited, including your latest addition of the link to frontline cover page article, seem to have gone through such a process of eliminating bias in that they are written with one sided information alone. None of them have heard Sri Jayendra Saraswathi or his representative before writing the article and they do not include his view point. On the contrary the judicial pronouncements are after hearing all the parties. Therefore the judicial pronouncements are more dependable and any news report that contains a view contrary to them has to be discarded. Generally, these articles say 'it is reported' 'it is learnt' and the like. Such statements are thus only hearsay and are not facts and therefore to hold them as "Sources" in itself is principally and principly wrong.

5. The frontline article by S.Viswanathan contains one sided point of view. If the same were posted as article in wikipedia, you yourself would have disputed its neutrality. The article carries many assumptions and presumptions and statements contrary to truth. To cite an example, the whole article is based on the presumption that BJP is an offshoot of Hindu Maha Sabha. This statement has not been borne out of any evidence or supportive material that the Author has provided. The Article ascribes motives to the Jan Kalyan and Jan Jagran movements without citing any basis. The article also seeks to put the blame on caste clashes on Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, whereas the Reports from bodies like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch do not blame him for these but blame certain political parties. The article conveniently does not cite the same Dr Krishnaswamy’s accusations on AIADMK and DMK for these clashes. These Human Rights Organisations’ reports are more dependable than news paper articles though these reports also do not carry out an elaborate exercise on elimination of bias like in a Court.

6. Imc has placed unspecific remarks as to the PoV. It would be advisable to list the objectionable PoVs clearly in one go so that the same could be addressed and NPoV arrived at. However, if one does not accept the judgements of the Higher Courts as final, cited officially, then such exercise would remain to be biased.

7. The link to the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgement on the conduct of the media and other organisations seems to have been deleted. This is restored as this is vital to know certain facts on hand as to how Sri Jayendra Saraswathi has been the victim of media campaign. I must reiterate that there cannot be a better source than a Higher Court's verdict as to facts in situations like this.

Appaiah, 5th December 2005.

[edit] revert of 68.193.158.108's edit

i have reverted the edit, as i think there are certain problems with it. once these issues are addressed, an accordingly modified version can be added. apologies for not making such modifications myself instead of deleting the text. here are the issues i see:

  • the text removed includes a couple of statements about X being considered Y. these are opinions which should be attributed to someone to be included in a wiki article, this will further the goal of maintaining Neutral Point of View. in fact, the article is currently tagged as non-neutral partly because some statements in it do not do this.
  • the statement that "By doing" so-and-so, "the institution headed ... work as ..." is either an argument that must be established or another point of view which must be attributed.
  • this article is about Jayendra Saraswathi and can include material on who he is, what he said, what he did/didn't do and what he is viewed as. material about what the kanchi mutt is, what it did, the issues regarding its nomination process for choosing the head of the mutt is more relevant in the article on Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham.


i hope we can reach a consensus on how to make suitable modifications to the suggested text. Doldrums 15:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


Kanchi Sankaracharyas are nominated based on age old caste system is a fact. Kanchi Sankaracharyas, both Chandrasekara Swami and Jayendra Saraswathi upheld caste system is another fact. Considering the importance of these facts in their personalities, I hope that the author will include and not remove my comments to that effect.

[User: Pazhani Bharathi, 4 Dec 2005]


Pazhani Bharathi,

u and i may agree that that only an upper caste man is nominated as a shankaracharya, that some people oppose the institution of the kanchi mutt and the shankaracharya, and oppose it for being casteist, but these statements need to be supported by sources to be included in a wiki article. i encourage you to find such sources and add them to the article for other editors to view.

further, these are statements about the mutt as an institution, not about the current shankaracharya and ought to added to the article Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, rather than here. at best, one may add a statement such as "As the head of an upper-caste institution with a tradition of maintaining class distinction, Jayendra Saraswati is regarded as ..." in this article, and the completion of this statement should be backed by a source.

however, if the opposition increased or decreased during jayendra saraswati's term, or if his actions were opposed, that is surely relevent material for this article.

how does one determine that shankara mutt is a strong supporter of the caste system? is that somebody's opinion, then it should be quoted as such. is that a "factual determination", then also, it should be sourced. similarly, who is it who considers some people as "avatar of the god" and "others as untouchable"? this should be mentioned(NPOV).

in my opinion, the statement above ("As the head of an upper-caste institution ...") is the kind of content that thet meets these wiki guidelines and which is relevent to this article. i encourage you to review the wikipedia guidelines (links above) and suggest suitable changes to the added content. Doldrums 08:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "another" murder case

apaiah, please provide some context for the source link u have added, explaining its relevance to this article. the article makes no mention of this case, and the judicial order makes no mention of JS! thanks, Doldrums 10:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Doldrums, There was a suitable reference earlier in the article, which seems to have been deleted. Please see Point No 3 of my note dated 13th November 2005 in the NPoV discussions with Imc above. Sri Jayendra Saraswathi was sought to be includied in this case by the prosecution but after the High Court gave this judgement, the prosecution relented. Paragraph 13 of the judgement has a reference to his name. thanks. Appaiah, 5th December 2005.

Mr.Doldrums, You said "As the head of the Kanchi Peetham, He has taken an active role in the promotion of education and social welfare. He was instrumental in establishing many schools and educational institutions to cater to the needs of poor." Did you give any data to support this claim?. You dont have to prove that sun rise in the east. Kanchi Sankaracharyas are selected based on caste is a fact. Is there any dispute about this fact?. Hindu religion divides people into "varnas" and let some people to work with god and some others on the gutter is another fact. Do you disagree. If you do, I can discuss with you in another forum, if you wish. [Pazhani Bharathi]

PB,
verify from article history [1] that i did not "say" that "As the head of the ...". i in fact toned down the article which was overtly complimentary. the sources for the statement above that i did leave behind are [2], [3] and [4] (some of these have been removed from the article & (see discussion above) i have requested that they be reinserted.).
now, i must ask to you to provide similar sources for ur statements. and answer how the hindu caste system is relevant to the article. you have said "Considering the importance of these facts in their personalities", can u elaborate on this?
Doldrums 08:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Doldrums, the kamakoti.org and the frontline links that you have mentioned have not been deleted. Only the BBc link along with the further links provided by the said link has been deleted as it contains information that have been found to be baseless by the Supreme Court. I have clearly outlined the need to respect the Supreme Court's judgement when compared to a report by a news media, especially as the former adopts methods to arrive at neutrality and the latter does not. Despite this, do you insit on the retention of the BBC item? Appaiah, 14th december 2005.

apaiah,
see edit history[5] for the deleted links. if you are concerned about possible bias in the media reports, the way to deal with it in wiki is to state those concerns and provide the link, not remove the link altogether.
this article needs some well-known sources, if the only sources for its content are websites of the kanchi mutt and its supporters, it will automatically raise pov issues. the deleted links were originally placed there to serve as a source for many statements in the article. if they are deleted, there will be several unsourced statements in the article, which is not acceptable. either the deleted links must be restored or other sources must be found as a substitute.
regarding points raised by you in the posting dated 5th December 2005
  1. you haven't yet made the case that the news reports are factually incorrect - if you dont want to list all the errors in the deleted news reports, list the most egregious ones.
  2. and
  3. wiki policies do not distinguish between official or judicial findings and statements by other parties. all are treated the same - they are reported, and any concerns about those statements are also reported. there is no wiki policy/guideline to delete a source because it contradicts a judicial finding. you can see the wiki docs on npov, citing sources and verifiability. see also the query i posted on the help desk[6].
  4. and
  5. there is no wiki policy to consider judicial findings to be automatically nuetral pov. further, wiki sources are not required to be unbiased. bias in a source does not automatically mean it should be removed. but the bias of the source can be stated along with link.
to sum up, the actionables
  1. sources to back up statements in article. reinsert deleted ones or find appropriate (i.e. independent, well-known) substitutes
  2. reinsertion of deleted statement that saraswati was considered to be close to jayalalithaa.
  3. source to back the statement that TN govt tried to foist the assault case[7] on saraswathi.i find no mention of saraswathi in the court order.
  4. the comment about "casteist" institution to be sourced and incorporated more gracefully into the article.
Doldrums 17:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Court judgements contain facts and if any media report contains anything contrary to the judgements, such statements are to be termed as false and treated as such

Doldrums,

1.Please note that the comment "Jayalalithaa was a follower of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi" is supported by photographs in the link that you yourselves have provided and yet that comment seems to have been corrected as "Sri Jayendra Saraswathi was close to Jayalalitaa" first and later deleted by some edits (not me).

2. One cannot say that the Court judgements contain contray views to those found in the news media reports. That the Court judgements are findings of facts and they cannot be disputed is an accepted principle world over, as I have already outlined above. As such wikipolicy must also be in consonance with this principle. If any media report contains anything contrary to the Court's findings that is to be termed as containing false statements and not "as biased" as metioned by you. Kindly appreciate that these media reports do not go through the same process as a Court judgement, as stated by me earlier and therefore to keep anything that contains falsehood alongwith Court judgements which contains facts is not correct. I am unable to comprehend as to how the Supreme Court of India is considered as "not so independent and well-known" as much "independent and well-known" as BBC and Frontline and insistance is made on the articles that contradict the Judgement passed by the Supreme Court despite so much of explanzation. I am not sure as to whether it is wiki's policy as well, as an authentic source has not been provided by you.

4. I request you to read once again the detailed replies given by me as to the fositing of the case judgement, I had in my note given the paragraph number where the reference can be found.

Appaiah 16:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

taking this one at a time, show me a statement in the news articles which contradicts the courts findings. Doldrums 17:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Doldrums,

taking one at a time, please indicate as to how you would like to address the one sided views in the frontline article as I have detailed in Para 5 of my note dated 5th December 2005 above. Appaiah 04:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

okay, sources referenced in wiki articles are *not* required to be npov. so i'll include the frontline article among the sources and state the claimed pov of the article in comment accompanying the source. the comment may be of the form "frontline is a Indian newsmag regarded by <who?> as <insert policial/ideological affiliation>" or a similar quote about the author or (if you have a whole lot of patience), the comment will point out that certain statements in the frontline article (which ones?) are disputed by (who?).
and now it is your turn to address my query. which statements in the deleted link are contradicted by the supreme court finding? Doldrums 07:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Doldrums,

1. The aforesaid Frontline link is already there in the article. So far, none attempted to address the unsourced allegations contained therein, in as much an attempt was made to dispute the Courts' judgements.

2. Any news media article may contain pov. But if it contains anything that contradicts the Supreme Court findings then such article must be termed as falsehood and treated as such, in that it must not be linked. The second frontline article 'behind the arrest', which was deleted, contains the police version alone, which version was found to be without evidence and basis by the Supreme Court in its judgement dated 10th January 2005 and Madras High Court in its judgement dated 28th January 2005. Moreover, the Supreme Court judgement deals with all these points in its detailed order and therefore there is no compelling need to insist on the link to Frontline, except in an attempt to attain a negative point of view much against Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, which I am sure is not your aim. The Frontline article kind of coverage has been dealt with, albeit without naming so, by the AP High Court judgement dated 29th December 2004. All these links are available before you. As and when any news paper article contains anything that contradicts the Court judgement, then such article loses its character as a "source" and therefore it cannot be termed even as 'pov'.

3. When Court judgements are so heavily weighing against the article in question, what is the need for insisting in the link being maintained may be explained. Kindly also show an authentic wikipedia policy source to support your view that the Indian Supreme Court's and High Courts' judgements are 'Pov' and that they are not as "independent and well known sources" as much as BBC and Frontline. If only these judgements are considered as 'Pov', then the need for contrary 'Pov' link will arise. If these judgements are accepted as facts then there is no need to insist on the links that contain contrary views. I hope you will respect the soverignity of India and the exclusive domain of Indian Courts in their jurisdiction to establish facts and declare them to be so. The articles that you refer were all made before these judgemnets were pronounced - and after the judgements were pronounced, the contrary contents lose their value as "source" as such - leave alone to treat them as point of view or otherwise. Kindly let me know your stand on accepting the Court verdicts as findings and declaration of facts, before we analyse further articles.

4. Kindly let me know if you have been able to locate the name of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi in the Court Judgement dated 28th January 2005.

5. I just stumbled upon another article that would explain point by point various media reports that were made on the basis of police version and were overruled by the Supreme Court as baseless. I give the link here. http://www.kanchiforum.org/interesting/QandA.htm A reading of this along with the referred articles will give the details. I thought that this would save lot of space here.

Appaiah 08:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

again, taking this one at a time, show me a statement in the deleted news article which contradicts the courts findings. Doldrums 13:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Doldrums

1. Please read Para 2 of my note at 08.54 hrs 17 December 2005 above, where I have clearly stated that the entire contents of the article being just the police version is contradicting the Supreme Court Judgement. An itemwise detail is available in the link that I had provided in Para 5 in the same note.

2. Now it is certainly needed of you to clearly state whether you respect the soverignity of India and accept the Supreme Court and High Court verdicts as findings of facts, as it is a basic need now to proceed on any further analysis. I hope that you will kindly provide an authentic wiki-source as to your stand that "the Indian Supreme and High Court judgements are less dependable and less known than the articles of BBC, Frontline and Rediff" rather than simply saying that this is wiki-policy.

Appaiah 14:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

the previous comment you mentioned states that the deleted articles
"contains the police version alone, which version was found to be without evidence and basis by the Supreme Court in its judgement. incorrect and without evidence are not the same thing. are u claiming that the articles are incorrect or that they have no evidence to support thier statements? if u r unable to post a single example of a statement in the article which contradicts the court's findings, i must ask you to withdraw ur claim that the article is incorrect. i am not interested in reading what various forums have to say about the controversy, i just want two sentences, one from the article, one from the court findings, which contradict each other.
the same paragraph in ur comment above says
"Court judgements are findings of facts and they cannot be disputed is an accepted principle world over, as I have already outlined above. As such wikipolicy must also be in consonance with this principle.". i must inform you that wiki policies & guidleines of npov and verifiability do not permit a courts findings to be reported in wikipedia to the exclusion of any existing contrary view, simply because it is the court's findings. u r free to consult anyone u wish on wikipedia to make this clear to you.
and now, i ask you for the third time, show me an "incorrect" statement in the deleted article. Doldrums 16:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Doldrums

The link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4006187.stm does not contain anything connected with the controvercial subjects although it contains point of view items based on assumptionds and presumptions of the author.

Appaiah 16:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

and so have added it to the sources. Doldrums 16:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
This discussion keeps getting brought back to the suggestion that court judgements are statements of fact that may not be questioned. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and may report on all sides in the court case, whether the court accepted it or not, and whether it is true or not. In any court case, it is still relevant to report the evidence for or against, whether or not the court chose to accept that evidence. The question here should be, is the news report relevant to the article. And of course, the accusations made against JS are relevant to this article, whether they are true or not. Much of the relevant detail is in those news reports. Hence they are worth reporting, as are the court judgements that disagree with them. Imc 17:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. Doldrums: I have two points to make. But please let’s first see if we agree about certain basic principles.

It is true that Wikipedia “is an encyclopaedia.” As such, its purpose is to inform people about certain subjects. The information must, in one way or another, reflect facts. And the presentation must not be longer than the facts demand. Otherwise, readers are likely not to read to the end or even get confused by the plethora of redundant information. This is a principle of economy, somewhat akin to Occam’s Razor.

Now I come to my first point. Several courts in India have made known their findings about the Sankararaman murder case. The Supreme Court, notably, has declared that the Tamil Nadu authorities and police have failed prima facie to furnish evidence pointing to the involvement of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi in this murder case or to any reasonable motive for him to commit such an act. Yet you feel that, in addition to Court findings, it is necessary to include news articles about the case – such as the one in Frontline - written before the Court judgments and containing assertions contradicted by Court findings. But many, many other articles were also published both before and after the various Court judgments. Will you agree to include them all? If not, on what basis and by whom is the selection to be made? The inclusion of other material would be pertinent in a case where there is sufficient reason to question court findings. If you have any reasons to throw into doubt the solemn opinions of the Supreme Court of India, please give them here. If not, you must accept that articles such as the one from Frontline are no longer pertinent and remove them. Otherwise, you will have to accept to include several hundred other articles.

My second point concerns objectivity. We all agree that no one and no presentation of “facts” are 100% objective. There is a gradation of objectivity. In a matter where two conflicting sources of information do not differ drastically in their degree of objectivity, it is necessary to present both points of view in Wikipedia. But if it is consensually agreed that source A is far more reliable than source B, C and D, only source A deserves attention. Under ordinary conditions, court judgments are considered far more objective than newspaper and magazine articles. Hence, in a short biography of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi intended for an international audience, articles containing assertions judged false or inexact by the courts are out of place

82.227.37.96 22:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks for taking an interest in resolving this issue.
my reasons for including the news sources:
  1. certain statements in the article (eg. saraswathi's link to jayalalitha & "hindutva" political parties, for want of a better phrase) are only supported by media sources, not the court's findings
  2. readability: if readers are expected to find it difficult to go through a wikipedia articles with a few extra links, i can't see them going through a court judgement to ferret out information about one of the accused.
  3. diversity: the article has a number of sources which "support" saraswathi, (kanchi* websites), it also needs sources which don't have this bias. to answer ur first concern about which sources should be included - information in well-known sources about a subject is usually included in a wiki article.
  4. it has not been agreed that the news articles are less reliable than the court. to sort that issue out, i have repeatedly requested that factual errors in the news articles be pointed out. the only reply to that query has been the statement that one of the articles makes propositions on an unrelated matters (search for "hindu mahasabha" above) that apaiah does not agree with. that by itself does not call for expunging the news article.
  5. it has been suggested that the news reports contain only the "police version" of the events and that version has been "found without basis" by the court and this makes the article factually incorrect. my guess is that the news report will carefully (and correctly) report the police version as the police version, and take enough care not to publish factually incorrect and damaging statements, which would make the publishers liable for libel.
  6. the wiki articles makes statements about the media reporting of the court case, additional reason for adding links to that reporting, enabling readers to see for themselves what is is.
finally, since the media reports are going to be added while retaining the court orders, and there is an opportunity to state concerns about the media reports in the comment following the link, i don't see any reason why the media reports must be excluded.
reading all that i've said above, it seems we are treading on the same ground over and over again, which is why i've made an attempt to break the cycle by taking up one issue at a time and resolve it. Doldrums 07:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Doldrums and Imc

I once again require you to clearly state as to whether you respect the soverignity of India as an independent Nation and the finality of findings of facts by its Supreme Court and High Court. This is essential to proceed further in the matter. Just vague replies like wiki-policies will not suffice and you have the onus to show the athentic source supporting your stand. You cannot expect me find that out.

Appaiah 03:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

i once again require you to show me an "incorrect" statement in the deleted article. if the wiki policies and guidelines i've pointed to are not sufficient to convince you, i can only direct you to the mechanisms for resolving disputes on wikipedia. i have stated my view (and the wiki view) of the "finality of findings of facts by" courts before. i have no wish to discuss my respect or lack thereof, for the "sovergnity of India as an independent Nation" on this forum. Doldrums 07:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Appaiah, the sovereign status of India or its supreme court have not been challenged. They are not relevant here, and have only been raised by you. You are seeking to confuse the issue by bringing such topics in. The article is about one individual. He has been accused of a crime. The fact that the courts have found in his favour is now fully reported in this article. Since the detail of the original charges would be of interest to a reader, it would be useful to include them also here. In accordance with Wikipedia policy, references should be given for the content. The following links, that were removed by you a little while ago, give a reasonably detailed view of the history of the charges against JS. It would therefore be reasonable to summarise these charges, and the history of the court cases, and to quote these links as references, plus any others links that give useful information.
Imc 10:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: indented comments below are doldrums' reply.

Dear Doldrums: Allow me to take up your replies point by point.

Point 1: It is true that “certain statements in the article… are only supported by media sources.” The question is: Are such statements true and relevant?

Let’s take first the question relating to truth. You would agree that if I want to write an article about something in Wikipedia, it is up to me to furnish evidence for the assertions contained therein. (This can consist of undisputed facts, recourse to the opinions of recognized experts, etc.) In my view the same must apply to statements contained in newspaper and magazine articles. In this case, the responsibility for establishing the veracity of such statements lies with the person who has introduced the press articles (or links thereto) and seeks to retain them. In the case at hand, Appiah ought to clearly point out the statements in the “Frontline” article (or any other article) which he/she considers moot. Then whoever insists on retaining the link to the article must furnish proof or put forth convincing arguments showing that the challenged statements contain a reasonable degree of truth. This is the only way out of the present deadlock. Otherwise, Appiah must be allowed to introduce any number of links to other news articles which according to him/her reflect the facts.

regarding the suggestion that i establish the truth of the contents of the frontline article, see first two paragraphs of wiki:verifiability. i have no a-priori problems with other editors adding other sources as they see fit, they have every right to.

Points 2 § 3: This brings me to the question of relevance and economy. You speak about “a few extra links.” But again I ask: What is to prevent Appiah or anyone else from introducing another 100 or 200 links? Obviously, along with truth value, relevance is essential.

nothing prevents other editors from adding more links. each added link will be weighed for its merit.

Your 3rd point is an appeal to “diversity.” You mention items which “support Saraswathi.” (Quotation marks yours.) Then in the next sentence you transform “support” into bias. As to the question, which sources should be included, your answer is: “information in well-known sources about a subject is usually included in a wiki article.” First of all, who is to decide which sources are “well-known?” Secondly, the question remains as to the truth and the relevance of the “information” in such sources.

see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources for existing guidelines.

If the information is the same as that found in the court discussions and conclusions, then you don’t add “diversity” by including them. Therefore, the information must be different from what the Courts have said. It can be different in two ways: 1) It can introduce other details about the life and mission of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi. But besides being substantiated in accordance with scientific standards, the details must be relevant. Otherwise, the supporters and admirers of SJS can expand the biography to any number of pages. So can his detractors. Will this be appropriate at Wikipedia? Do you, or don’t you agree, with the concept of economy in scientific writing, i.e., a reasonable length for an article, commensurate with the subject discussed?

indeed my point is that the news reports does introduce other details about Jayendra Saraswathi

To include information from news articles (or links thereto) which say the opposite of the Supreme Court findings simply for the sake of “diversity” seems frivolous. In scientific Wikipedia information about the nature and the movements of the earth, would you want to include, for the sake of diversity, an elaborate article from some 21st Century sect which still maintains that our planet is flat and the sun revolves around it?

it has not been established that the news articles "say the opposite of the Supreme Court findings". see NPOV#Undue_weight for how "flat earth" theory wld be included. the reporting of mainstream news sources are not treated the same way as the views of "minority view".

Your 4th point states: “It has not been agreed that the news articles are less reliable than the court.” Please forgive me for saying this, but I feel you are not being reasonable here. It is generally agreed that, except under extraordinary circumstances, court findings are more reliable than news articles rushed to the press minutes, hours or a few days after the event. In the case at hand, the points discussed in the news articles have been debated in detail before the courts by the Prosecution and the Defence, and after legthy deliberations the Judges have given their verdict. If you have any particular reasons to questions the impartiality or the competence of the Supreme Court of India, please kindly share them with us here.

if it is very clear to other editors that the news articles under discussion are incorrect/unreliable, perhaps one of them can oblige me by pasting statements from the court findings and articles which contradict each other.

You further write: “I have repeatedly requested that factual errors in the news articles be pointed out.” I agree with you entirely. The onus is on the people who say the articles contain factual errors and unsubstantiated judgments to single them out. Once this has been done, the onus will be on the people who want to retain the articles (or links thereto) to bring forth proof substantiating the challenged assertions.

argee with first part completely. for the second part of ur statement, see verifiability link above.

Point 5: You say “my guess is that the news report will carefully (and correctly) report the police version as the police version, and take enough care not to publish factually incorrect and damaging statements, which would make the publishers liable for libel.”

It so happens that newspersons and publishers in India do not fear libel simply because in that country a libel suit initiated by a member of the civil society can drag on from court to court anywhere from 12 to 20 years. On the other hand, when the same type of lawsuit is launched by a powerful Chief Minister such as Ms. Jayalalithaa, the media find themselves in grave dangers of somewhat extra-legal nature. (Ms. Jayalalithaa is considered in India as the world record holder in launching defamation cases. Please see http://www.cpj.org/attacks03/asia03/india.html. See also: http://www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/99/0507/nat10.html and http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=mishra%2Fmishra65.txt&writer=mishra.)

You yourself say that your 5th point is only a “guess.” Could you please define criteria in accordance with which you would agree that your guess is wrong in this particular case where SJS has been allegedly accused of conspiracy to murder?

if anyone can point to statements in the news article which contradict the court findings, i wld certainly accept that my guess is wrong.

I am only trying to help to break the deadlock. 82.227.37.96 11:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

i appreciate ur effort, and hope its okay to insert my comments in between yours, i felt they will be easier to follow this way. Doldrums 14:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr./MS. Doldrums : Inserting your replies within my text has its advantages and I thank you for it. (But in my opinion, indenting to signal a response is not sufficient. If it is technically possible, please kindly in the future use italics or, better yet, a different colour. A casual visitor may overlook the “indent notice” and then conclude that the text is riddled with contradictions. On returning to our discussions, I myself was at first a bit confused. But this may be just a personal problem, as I am quite old.)

I feel some progress has been made in the debate, since you write: “if it is very clear to other editors that the news articles under discussion are incorrect/unreliable, perhaps one of them can oblige me by pasting statements from the court findings and articles which contradict each other.”

I totally agree with you on the need to point out all items which are incorrect/unreliable and contradict Court findings. This is essential for an agreement. Since you also say: “it has not been established that the news articles ‘say the opposite of the Supreme Court findings’,” I conclude that you agree to the principle that any articles which contradict Supreme Court findings – and more specially those written before the Supreme Court – are no longer valid or relevant here. Please kindly confirm this point.

Thank you for insisting on accurate application of wiki:verifiability principles. You refer to the first two paragraphs of wiki:verifiability. But the 3rd paragraph, stressing “Neutral point of view,” is just as important. Indeed, the rules state that the various elements of “the content-guiding policy are compementary. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other.” This brings me back to a point made earlier to which you have not inserted a reply: Court judgments are as a general rule considered to represent a more “Neutral point of view” (I quote Wikipedia) than news articles rushed to the press minutes or a few days after the event. This is the general rule. But I agree that, in certain exceptional circumstances, there may be reasons to question the neutrality of court decisions. Once again, please allow me to ask whether you see any reasons which cast doubts on the decisions of the Supreme Court of India concerning the involvement of Sri Jayendra Saraswati in the murder of Sankararaman. Unless you can point to such reasons, we should, within the limits of this discussion, agree that these Supreme Court findings render invalid earlier news reports about the same matter if they are contradictory. Hence, such earlier findings would, according to wiki:verifiability, be out of place here.

Now I come to other biographical details which may not be in contradiction with Court findings, insofar as these details have not been judged by the courts. (You write: “indeed my point is that the news reports does introduce other details about Jayendra Saraswathi.”) This brings me back to concern for economy and relevance. The subject here is a Wikipedia biography of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi. Modern researchers all agree that the length of an article should be commensurate with the subject and the public the article is intended for. Please tell me if you agree with this as a working principle.

It so happens that at this point – his 71st year – the murder allegations loom large in Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s life. The question I put before you is this: What portion of the article should be reasonably devoted to this sensational affair (both within the text, in the links and references attached to it, and in the discussions)? My personal answer is: a few sentences summarizing the official police charges and the corresponding court findings. Otherwise, the biography and the discussions would become lopsided and smack of pro or anti propaganda.

Mr./MS. Doldrums, this brings me back to an earlier remark of yours. You wrote: “the article has a number of sources which "support" Saraswathi, it also needs sources which don't have this bias.” I am sure you would agree that Wikipedia should not be turned into a pro/con boxing ring. If the information is valid and in keeping with Wikipedia policy both in letter and in spirit, then the question of support or the opposite thereof should not arise. Otherwise, for whatever statement made, its opposite should systematically be included to avoid suspicions of “support” and “bias.”

May I make a plea here, which is nothing more than a personal suggestion. I assume all of you taking part in this discussion are Indian (not my case) or in some way connected to India. I am sure you would not want people from other parts of the world to think that Indians are not capable of setting personal views aside in the context of scholarly work. So please try to come to an agreement on a biography of reasonable length, containing only relevant details, without blowing up the allegations against Sri Jayendra Saraswathi out of all proportion.

82.227.37.96 13:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

my view on inclusion of sources is
  • include news sources for background information contained in them.
  • include a factually correct news source reporting the trial underway, in addition to the court findings, for readability.
  • if no factually correct news source exists, that itself is a big deal, and will have to be reported in the article, again requiring inclusion of a representative news report.
  • to include sources independent of the mutt and its followers is not just to provide a "conflicting" pov. independent sources which report "positives" about the shankaracharya add credibility, to the wiki article & to the shankaracharya".
indeed there is much more to be done to the article beyond reporting this episode, and i would like to make a start on it.
Doldrums 16:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr./Ms. Doldrums: I am glad we seem to be in general agreement regarding the inclusion of sources. Most certainly, sources independent of the Matham ought to be included. (May I suggest that we use the word “Matham” and not “mutt.” The latter term has two very derogatory connotations in standard British and American English. It can create confusion for non-Indian visitors here at Wikipedia. This is only a suggestion. In no way do I wish to impose anything.)

Before introducing new sources, I suggest that we review those already given. I have visited the sites to which links are provided and which, according to you, “support” Sri Jayendra Saraswathi. I agree with you entirely. They do, in various ways, support the Shankaracharya of Kanchi. The Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham site acquaints visitors with the doctrines and the mission of the Matham. Kanchi sathya, if I am not mistaken, gives information about the Sankararaman murder case in which Sri Jayendra Saraswathi was said to have been involved by the Tamil Nadu police. It includes news reports from a vast number of journals about the affair. The court judgments, for which links are provided, show that the courts, notably the Supreme court of India, have refuted the police allegations. As for Kanchiforum, it clearly states its purpose, just as Kanchi sathya does: information and arguments showing Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s innocence. Insofar as the “Kanchi” websites raisond’être is clearly made known to visitors, they cannot be accused of insidious influence. So I agree with you that they should be included.

There remain the two independent sources: the BBC News profile of 12th November 2004 and the “Frontline” cover story of 24th November 2004.

The BBC article contains a number of factual errors. It refers to Sri Jayendra Saraswathi as “Mr. Saraswathi.” As you no doubt know, “Saraswathi” is not the Shankaracharya’s surname; it is the name of the sannyasin (monk) order to which the Kanchi Shankaracharyas belong. To make matters worse, the BBC article says: “Mr. Saraswathi is also known as the Shankaracharya.” The fact is that he is not “known as” but is the official Shankaracharya of Kanchi. These are grave errors which must not be allowed, if we want to maintain a minimum level of scholarship. If only for this reason, the link to the BBC article must be removed. Moreover, this article dating from 12th November 2004 (the day after the Shankaracharya’s arrest) says the Shankaracharya’s has a “colourful” past. In the context of the early allegations and innuendos about Sri Jayendra Saraswathi – which were all obviously entirely false since no official charges other than “conspiracy to murder” were ever filed against him – the etiquette “colourful past” is highly misleading and unjust. (I insist on the context of the mediatic defamation campaign following the Shankaracharya’s arrest, which gives very negative connotations to the adjective “colourful.”) For all these reasons, I say the link to the article from the BBC ought to be removed.

This leaves the article from “Frontline.” Before going further, I would be grateful if you could tell me if we are in agreement so far. If so, we can discuss the “Frontline” article also. Mr./Ms. Doldrums, I await your response. (Please forgive me for not giving my name. I have tried my level best and followed the “tilde” instructions carefully. But I always get a number instead of my name. I’m afraid these modern devices are too complicated for a person of my age.

to begin with, ur signature: for wikipedia to replace the four tilde's with ur signature, u must first sign up for an account here and then log in at the same place. while logged in, any edits u make will be identified with ur username. if u're not logged in, or don't have an account, wiki software will identify the edits with the IP address of ur computer - the four numbers separated by dots.
reg. the bcc article, i cannot agree with you that referring to JS as "Mr. Saraswathi" is a factual error. it may not be the way JS or his followers refer to him, but the bbc will have its own editorial policies and guidelines on honorifics, just as wikipedia does (here). further, to my knowledge, there is no authority which designates who is and who is not a shankaracharya. it is my understanding that whether the kanchi matham does in fact have the "right" to call itself a shankara matham is disputed. in this circumstance, the bbc cannot be faulted for using the term "known as" instead of "is". if the bbc report says that the shankaracharya has a "colorful" past, not a factual assertion, but an opinion, one which reflect some people's belief that some of his actions were not in conformity with what is expected of a shankaracharya. i cannot agree that these are factual errors which call for expugning the bbc source. since we appear to disagree on clearly enunciated points, perhaps we can take the opinion of other wiki editos in resolving this dispute.

Doldrums 14:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear MR./Ms. Doldrums : Thank you for patiently explaining the name entry, which I shall certainly try next time. For now, allow me to say you leave me a little confused. Do you agree or not that all the rules and guidelines given by Wikipedia are there for the purpose of making sure that all articles therein contain truth and not falsehood? It is essential to come to an agreement on this basic point. If it is a neutral point of view, objectivity and truth that are aimed at, we can find common grounds and proceed. If not, our discussions are sterile. As applied to the BBC article, this means that the question is not whether “the bbc will have its own editorial policies and guidelines on honorifics.” The question is whether “Saraswathi” is Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s family name or not. Ask any non-Hindu reader what “Mr. Saraswathi” means to him/her and the answer will be: a particular person’s surname or family name. The purpose of any encyclopedia is to give correct and exact information. We are not talking about this or that person’s opinion here or about this or that editorial policies; we are talking about facts. The BBC article is wrong here regarding a fact. Frankly, I think it would childish to refer a matter like this to Wiki editors, as you suggest.

The BBC article itself calls Sri Jayendra Saraswathi “the leader of the Kanchi Shankara Mutt” and adds that Kanchi Matham is one of the five “seats of Hinduism” with a Shankaracharya at its head. So how can you maintain that “the bbc cannot be faulted for using the term "known as" instead of "is"? That the BBC reporter himself may not have noticed that he was contradicting himself is one thing; but surely we who are setting up an encyclopaedia here, cannot allow such mistakes concerning facts.

You beg the question when you write: “it is my understanding that whether the Kanchi Matham does in fact have the "right" to call itself a Shankara Matham is disputed. The fact is that in the same article the BBC says SJS is “the leader of the Kanchi Shankara Mutt” and that he “is known as Shankaracharya.” This will confuse Wiki readers.

You write also: “to my knowledge, there is no authority which designates who is and who is not a Shankaracharya.” It is not clear to me what sort of authority you have in mind. Legal authority? Moral authority? The authority of the Catholic Pope or that of some Ayatollah? The fact is that each Shankaracharya is designated by the authority of his predecessor. That is the tradition of the Shankaracharyas in India and no other “authority” has even been required by the Hindus.

The above are all factual errors in the BBC article which call for its removal. As for the etiquette “colourful past,” it is not just an opinion. Given that it was written the day after the Shankaracharya’s arrest, it is intended to confirm the innuendos spread by the police.

In your previous posting you proposed to “include news sources for background information contained in them.” If this BBC article is the sort of thing which you feel contains “background information,” I am afraid I cannot agree; the little information it contains is factually wrong and the rest is misleading.

i remain unconvinced that the statements pointed out (viz. "mr. shankaracharya", "known as", "colourful past") are factual errors. so i continue to maintain that the bbc and frontline articles should be included as sources. in such a case where consensus is not reached, possible ways to proceed further are mediation, referrels to other editors for comments, etc. see Resolving disputes. Doldrums 16:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. Doldrums: The BBC has committed a grave factual error in referring to Sri Jayendra Saraswathi in such a way that Wiki readers could conclude that “Saraswathi” is his family name. You try to explain away the error by saying that “the bbc will have its own editorial policies and guidelines on honorifics.” If this were the case, then consistency would have the BBC refer to the Catholic Pope as “Mr. Pope” and to the Archbishop of Canterbury as “Mr. Canterbury.” Please point out actual applications of the “editorial policies” which you attribute to the BBC. Then I shall concede you the point.

There are two other damning objections to the BBC article which you defend at all costs. Firstly, in a very short and flimsy article the reader is told twice that “Mr Saraswathi, an insulin-dependent diabetic, has a colourful past.” The medicine a person takes is part of his private life. Revealing it in public constitutes a violation of basic human rights and a breach of the ethics of civilized journalism.

As for the “colourful past,” the only detail given by the BBC is: “He once ran away from the Kanchi Shankara Mutt in the 1980s following differences with a senior cleric.” The “Frontline” article has the merit of giving more accurate details in this regard. It says Sri Jayendra Saraswathi had given two reasons for abdicating his seat at Shankara Matham: “The first was to launch a national movement for spiritual, economic and national awakening of the people and the second was to take a `sankalpa' (solemn vow)." Is the expression "a colourful past" - used in a context where a person has been accused by the police of murder on untenable evidence, according to the Supreme Court of India - appropriate when a person has given up his exalted position of Shankaracharya to devote himself to the launching of "a national movement for spiritual, economic and national awakening of the people"?

In view of the above remarks I hope you will agree to remove the BBC article. Then we can take up a detailed discussion of the “Frontline” article. 82.227.37.96 21:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Frank Walker

i'm afraid i cannot agree to removing the bbc article. ur objections to it are not valid.
  • referring to JS as "Mr. Saraswathi" is not a factual error.
  • JS's diabetic condition will be a matter of public record, having been put there by his defense attorneys while asking for bail.
  • "colorful past" is not a fact, it is an assertion/opinion held by the author of the article. if u have a problem with such an assertion, take it up as a pov problem, not as a factual error. (to anticipate, i do not agree to removing the bbc article on the basis of this possible pov issue, noting that a far worse pov is present in many other sources listed, atleast one of which is a soapbox.)
Doldrums 11:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Doldrums, After having gone through the presentations here, I do not understand your position. It is illogical to ask someone to prove a negative. It is logical to prove a positive ( as something is ...), and it is quite illogical to prove a negative (as something is not ...) as the latter can not be Universal. So, what is your argument?

Vallabai

my position is this. an editor seeks to remove a relevent, informative, establised source, and i do not agree to it unless a sufficient cause is shown. Doldrums 11:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] informal mediation on sources to be in/excluded

i'm posting a request at the informal mediation cabal for help in resolving the dispute over what sources to be included in the article. see the case here. Doldrums 11:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


I have not read the full dispute yet but the discussion seems to have centered around the inclusion of the single BBC article towards the end. My suggestion would be to attach a wikinews link like that:

The wikinews article solves the problem of news being superceded by a court ruling, as the wikinews article does not aim to provide information about a later date while at the same time allowing readers to assess preserved media coverage, fully understanding that it may have been obsoleted by later information. It has been argued that too much attention to the court case would unduly turn the article about Jayendra Saraswathi into a description of the court case. Given the wikinews reference I cannot see the merit of adding the BBC article, especially when the BBC article is superficial as it is: "There are five Shankaracharyas - or seats of Hinduism - in India, based respectively in the north, south, east and west of the country." If other references for the court case are deemed necessary aside from those provided by the wikinews article I suggest that the additional information offered by each reference are presented in a concise summary in the article, so that the reader of the wikipedia article can understand what further information is provided by the individual reference. --Fasten 22:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC) (aspiring cabalist)

thank you for your help in trying to resolve this matter. the dispute concerns four links, the first two are currently in the article, and are proposed for removal, the next two have already been removed[8].
there are problems with replacing all four by the wikinews link. the wikinews article contains disputed facts (viz, the kanchi matha is 2500 year old, see Adi Shankara#Shankara's dates and Kanchi matha), and it has had an "retraction" appended to it [9] almost one year after publication, in flat contravention of wikinews policy.
may i also point out that news sources other than wikines follow guidelines on record-keeping and retraction similar to the wikinews policy that the mediator alludes to. they too, leave an incorrect article untouched as a historical record and publish a separate retraction. the news sources under discussion have not retracted their stories (they have, as the present article has, simply reported the court's findings, noting the court's opinion on the evidence presented, at a later date). the disputing wiki editors have not come up with factual errors in these articles, despite numerous requests to do so.
if there is concern that this article gives undue weightage to the court cases, i point out a similar undue weight in the inclusion of most of two paragraphs (second and third from the end); and two court orders in the external links section, which are only tangentially related to JS, and whose only purpose appears to be to cast poor light on the state prosecutors.
i believe there is no basis in policy or guidelines calling for removal of the sources(pov and factual accuracy have been debated, but no consensus has been reached). such a removal of all sources independent of the mutt and its supporters will, i think, seriously damage the pov of this article. so unless a valid case is made for their removal, the sources must remain as they are relevent, informative, and from established and notable organisations.
i request the mediator to steer the discussion from now on, seeing that the "new" arguments below have been gone over before, without a resolution. thanks. Doldrums 06:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Once the Supreme Court gives its finding on a point of fact and that order has handled whatever is stated in the links including the wikinews, there is no relevance for such other news item as the Supreme Court's findings are certainly more relevant and authentic. Anything contrary to such findings is not to be shown along with. To consider Supreme Court's findings as point of view is not correct. Wiki's Policies and guidelines key policy No 2 [10] states that "Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject factually and objectively". While the Supreme Court's findings are accepted as facts by principles of jurisprudence and civilised society, the same may not hold good for news reports. This is because the news reports lack the process of elimination of bias. Therefore the Court's findings have to be accepted as factually correct. Apart from this, when the subject matter is a case before the Courts, naturally, the Court’s findings will come into reference and one need not deter stating that it might turn to be a report of Court’s proceedings.

2. Reference may also be kindly made to [11] distinguishing between facts and point of view. The Court’s findings are facts and a primary source in accordance with this policy. The Supreme Court’s and High Courts’ official links have been furnished for these primary sources and therefore to seek to treat them as point of view is not wiki’s official policy either. The very same page also cautions “Beware false authority”. This policy states “Try to use sources who have degrees in the field they are discussing.” As we are discussing a case in the life of a person, the Court’s findings are the most relevant and the newpapers’ tabloid are less reliable in this regard and rank as ‘false authority’ as per this wiki guidelines.

3. Wiki's policies on capital letters is contrary to what has been stated as such policy by the editors herein so far to me. The wikipedia Manual of style [12] allows use of capital letters for references to certain religious personalities and recognises the use of commonwealth English too. Therefore, the capital letters for referring to Sri Jayendra Saraswathi may kindly be restored.

4. Wiki’s policy also does not treat the breaking news links to be sources, this is because the breaking news might contain inaccuracies. The links provided in the wikinews item above and as well as the BBC and rediff links are of this nature and thus these cannot be a source at this point of time. Reference may kindly be made to "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" [13]. It states thus: "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples."

Appaiah 12:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Appiah,

I entirely agree with your argument; in particular, about treating the Court judgements (especially the Apex Court judgement) as based on facts. Due difference must be made between the Court Judgements, based on arguments on both sides to a rational person (judge) versus the Newspaper and Magazine articles which necessarily have a POV issue because of the readership they are trying to appeal to as well as the interested sources they gather information from. Their's can represent a NPOV if they accurately report and represent both sides of the argument, which they rarely do nor can do, because of the demographics of their readership. All the articles cited here by Wikinews above represent only a one sided POV as they cite only from the Police sources, not anything from the other side.

Another factor to bolster the argument to say that a Court's verdict is based on fact is that the 'Appeal' process can only be made on 'legal' grounds and not on the opinion. There are rigorous standards in any civilized society to make sure that the legal processes are not based on aprioi factors, but rather on valid legal framework. These rigorous standards are not applicalble to a newspaper or magazine article. Hence we can not cite them as valid sources, portraying a NPOV, unless they are based on facts, which have irrefutable origins based on Logic, Law or Science.


--Vallabai 04:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to Appaih's 4 points of 5th Jan.
1. The Supreme Court findings. Wikipedia is not a conduit for the court's opinions. It should provide background matter, the origins, history, et.c. Certainly the court opinions are relevant, and may also be reported here. The readers of Wikipedia will give them due consideration. However, all background information that is relevant may be reported, whether the court believes that they are true or false, providing that it contributes to the reader's understanding of the subject.
2. Facts and Points of View. A point of view may be a fact; e.g. Jayalalitha may think that Jayendra Saraswathi should be in prison, if the court did not agree, then it would be only her PoV, but it does not mean that her PoV is not a fact. Given her influence, it may also be quite relevant to the article. Especially to a story that has political overtones. Agreed that it should be reported in as neutral a way as possible.
3. Capital letters; the manual of style permits (for instance) referring to the bishop of Rome as the Pope, rather than the pope. However, the manual of style does not imply that he may be referred to as He. While it is commonplace in English, to refer to God in the third person with a capital letter, the manual of style further explicitly says otherwise, even for deities, let alone human beings. [14] - Pronouns referring to deities, or nouns (other than names) referring to any material or abstract representation of any deity, human or otherwise, do not begin with a capital letter.
4. Breaking news. None of the links are, breaking news, they are old news. The article was composed well after the news broke. They are old news reports, of relevance to the subject. If better references can be found, of relevance to the subject, then of course they may be used instead.
Imc 13:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed links

[edit] Cover Story on Jayendra Saraswathi, in Frontline news magazine

  • Cover Story on Jayendra Saraswathi, in Frontline news magazine.

My impression is that this article is an extensive description of the person and is neither unduly restricted to the court case nor particularly biased. If this reference fails to meet Wikipedia standards I haven't understood why. --Fasten 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Profile of Jayendra Saraswathi at BBC news website

  • Profile of Jayendra Saraswathi at BBC news website

The BBC profile is inconsistent and superficial. I see no reason for its inclusion, especially I don't know what information it is supposed to provide that the other references do not provide. --Fasten 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

could u explain why you believe that the article is "inconsistent and superficial"? the article is short, it is a brief rather than a full report, but it serves an important function as a source well recognised internationally which corroborates many of the claims in the wiki article (JS's work on charitable bodies, relations with Jayalalitha & other political leaders, ... etc). Doldrums 08:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The name BBC is not sufficient to qualify the article and should not be an argument for its inclusion. The article is very short and doesn't seem to go into any details. It's inconsistent, e.g. in the mentioning of five Shankaracharyas and then listing only four: "There are five Shankaracharyas - or seats of Hinduism - in India, based respectively in the north, south, east and west of the country." For an article that short this is an astonishing glitch. --Fasten 13:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

listing out my reasons for retaining the bbc article.

observe that "definitional" facts regarding JS are corroborated by the bbc article, not by the 2 frontline pieces. i quote

[JS] is one of Hinduism's holiest priests and a revered figure among worshippers in southern India ...[and] is the influential head of a sect of India's Hindu Brahmin community

i further plan to use the following quote from the bbc article as well.

Though he belongs to a minority upper caste Hindu Brahmin sect, Mr Saraswathi has many followers cutting across caste, and his counsel is sought after by many political leaders.

while the bbc article is short, i think it provides relevant, useful information and context and portrays JS accurately. i think the bbc source is important because it contextualises JS for an international audience, which the other news sources does not aim to do. i dont see someone who is not already aware of JS, the kanchi matha, and life in india will be able to make much sense of the indian news sources cited. eg. the frontline article [15] begins by contrasting a quote from JS's predecessor about communal politics with JS's links to the political party, the BJP, which makes sense only for those who know about the BJP's (debated) communal stance. the bbc article, on the other hand, provides the required context.

while i agree that citing only well-known, "establishment" sources at the expense of other sources can lead to a systematic bias, i don't see a problem with citing both. i further don't believe that at the moment, the article has "too many" sources, calling for removal of some of them.

re. the 5 shankaracharyas in 4 directions, i would like to point out that there are indeed 4 seats established in the N, S, E & W of india by the shankaracharya, and there is a fifth, the kanchi matha, whose estabishment by shankaracharya is disputed. in such a case, while the bbc's language usage is questionable, i don't think it is an egregious error, requiring its removal altogether as a source. Doldrums 15:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think our friend "Doldrums" wants it both ways: he/she wants to retain both the BBC article and the Frontline articles based on two opposite arguments. The BBC article (which was published after the Supreme Court of India granted the bail for JS), does not even mention this fact. It has serious faults of reporting the facts when referring to the charges of 'sexual misconduct' which were not included in the eventual chargesheet. This article is clearly defamatory and if needed, I can furnish the long list of inaccuracies reported, if requested. In fact, this article is so 'slanderous' it meets the criteria for the 'libel' action in the courts in Britain, based on BBC's own definition of what constitutes 'libel'. --Vallabai 06:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article on the arrest of Jayendra Saraswathi in Frontline news magazine

The article is inconsistent: "Jayendra Saraswathi received an invitation to visit China ... Hindu tradition did not permit sanyasins to cross the seas ... The acharya dropped his plans to visit China and it is said that he was disappointed about it." As there is no apparent need to travel by sea from India to China that statement is nonsensical. I would say this article does not meet Wikipedia standards. If there is relevant information that makes this reference important I would like to know what it is in detail. --Fasten 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

well, it's what it reports on, that is possibly inconsistent. my understanding is that it is not feasible to travel by road from india to china, and flying involves "crossing the sea" which, it is claimed, is proscribed by hindu tradition. my guess is, the "crossing the sea" refers to flying via singapore. see also [16], the first direct flight b/w india, china started in 2002, year after JS's proposed visit). see also [17], [18] for corroboration. Doldrums 07:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
What additional information do these articles provide? --Fasten 10:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
they too report that shankararaman objected to JS's proposed visit to china, on the grounds that it requires "crossing the sea" and initiated proceedings in court to stop such a visit. Doldrums 15:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
This article contains allegations about the reasons for JS arrest as claimed by the Governement and the Police, which were later found to be UNTRUE by the Supreme Court of India. This actually is a 'slanderous' article: The veracity of the 'interview' by the Tamil Magazine 'Nakkeeran' is in question. 'Nakkeeran' is not considered to be a 'Main Stream' publication and has a history of being viewed as an 'Yellow Journal'. The 'objection to visit to China' by Sankararaman has no pertinence to the story as JS cancelled his trip willingly. Unless the purpoted 'interview' with JS can be validated (as magazines like Nakkeeran publish 'interviews' and the pious religious Heads let it go without challengs, it is always a question whether the actual 'interview' took place at all), we can not accept them as valid sources. And even if it did, the translation must be validated.

So, on the basis of a 'dated'and prejudiced article, which was superceded by the facts of the subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court of India, as well as quoting extensively from the unreliable sources as 'Nakkeeran', this article must be rejected for citation. --Vallabai 05:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coverage of the arrest on the Rediff news portal

This is an extensive collection of independent news items. I will have to check the individual news items. Maybe somebody can enlighten me as to what the value of that reference could be? --Fasten 19:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Court findings vs. newspaper articles

Maybe we can agree on the view that newspaper articles that are exclusively about the court case and its outcome are in fact superceded by the court's findings but articles that provide additional information about the person, the events at the time of the alleged murder (if I may call it this, is there a better wording?) or the public image of the person, possibly also the public image caused by the alleged murder before the court case, may indeed be relevant. If there were reliable sources accusing the court of being biased these would probably also qualify as relevant. There is an overwhelming amount of material and I haven not yet read all the material provided but it does seem highly redundant. I recommend not to include material merely to have a specific source (e.g. BBC) listed, if that source does not add relevant information or credibility to the already present information. --Fasten 11:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

If "Sri Jayendra Saraswathi" is, as I assume it is, his name it has to be written with capital letters. What is the dispute here? --Fasten 19:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

i think this is perhaps disputing an earlier edit [19] correcting the use of (uppercase) 'H' in "He" and "Him", (in accordance with explicit wiki guidelines). Doldrums 08:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there agreement that the use of capitalized H, He and Him is inadequate? If nobody replies I will assume this point is settled. --Fasten 11:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retraction

I've commented on the retraction added to the wikinews article on wikinews. --Fasten 18:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think official retractions can be expected for articles that stated correctly the current state of development and assumptions in a murder case. Newer articles about the court case will more probably be assumed to silently supercede the older articles. --Fasten 12:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] criticism of frontline article

Mr./Ms. Fasten, I shall undertake hereunder a succinct critical review of the "Frontline" cover story titled “Controversial career” and published on 20th November 2004, that is to say, a little over a week after Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s unjustified detention by the Tamil Nadu authorities. I believe I will be able to point out biased elements, contradictions, and errors of fact in the Frontline story.

The article begins with purported ideological differences - especially with respect to communalism - between Sri Jayendra Saraswathi and his predecessor and Guru, Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi. According to Mr. S. Viswanathan, the author of the article, the younger Shankaracharya had departed from the policy line of his predecessor and espoused Hindu communal causes, beginning in 1987, with his Jana Kalyan Jana Jaragan movement. However, in the same article Mr. Viswanathan tells us that:

"purported ideological difference" = CS's statement of disavowal of communal parties and JS's close links to same. Doldrums 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
BJP is not a "communal party". It was in power in India's Federal Government before the present Government. It is a major opposition party today and is consulted on all important national/international matters by the present government. This statement by the author is clearly not based on facts. --Vallabai 03:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

1)On launching Jana Kalyan Jana Jaragan, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi had “made it clear that the movement had the blessings of the Paramacharya “(Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi). Mr. Viswanathan does not point to any facts or considerations contradicting Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s statement.

article simply reports CS's support to the movement. it does not question this fact. Doldrums 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a reported fact, although it has to be viewed in the context of the alleged 'communal' policy differences between CS and JS. A 'fact' must always be presented in the right context. --Vallabai 04:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

2)A week after the launch, Mr. Viswanathan informs us, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi told "Frontline" that Jana Kalyan Jana Jaragan was not a communal movement and contended in support that some Christians and Muslims had joined the ranks. Here again, Mr. Viswanathan does not point to any considerations or facts refuting the non-denominational nature of the Shankaracharya’s movement.

does.
many of those present wondered if the talk of "Hindustan", Sanskrit and the cow as a national animal would attract volunteers from other faiths.
Doldrums 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This is an assumption on the part of the Reporter that a mere mention of 'Hinduatan' and a "Cow symbol' would not attract volunteers from other faiths. In India where there is a tradition of tolerance for centuries from the majority religion, this assumption is not totally valid. Please read the quotes elsewhere in Frank Walker's rejoinder on the other faith's condemning the arrest of JS. --Vallabai 04:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Like other detractors, Mr. Viswanathan belabors the August 1987 “surprise development,” when Sri Jayendra Saraswathi left Kanchi Sankara Matham and abdicated his highly prestigious religious seat. For the life of me, I do not understand why Mr. Viswanathan and other critics present this episode in such a way as to make readers believe that, by renouncing his high position, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi had committed some kind of unpardonable sin. (You may recall, Mr./Ms. Fasten, that the BBC article which you also judged flimsy alluded to this same event as the Shankaracharya’s “colorful” past.) And yet the facts are known to everyone and clearly stated by Mr. Viswanathan himself in his article: Sri Jayendra Saraswathi had left his highly honored seat of Hindu religious leader “to launch a national movement for spiritual, economic and national awakening of the people.” Given the fact that the movement was for the good of “the people” and not just “the Hindu people,” given moreover that he had abdicated his august position as one of the foremost Hindu religious leaders to launch the movement, I say Mr. Viswanathan is being blatantly biased when he cites this incident, and the motives behind it, as proof of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s “departure towards communalism.”

sticking to this article. don't agree that it "belabour" this event. event takes up most of one paragraph, reports JS's statement on the matter, sticks to factually reporting the event.
it is not being biased to cite an incident. the "departure towards communalism" qoute encompasses the whole article, not just this incident. the article reports many actions of JS that it argues are communal. Doldrums 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
But in the context where we have established already that JS has not been associating with 'communal parties', quoting this incident in a negative tone only adds to the foundation of the article, to say that JS has associated with 'communalism'. Because the fundamental argument is wrong, this inference is wrong. --Vallabai 04:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Like all post 11/11 detractors (“11/11” refers to the date of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s arrest, 11 November 2004), Mr. Viswanathan presents past history in such a way as to make readers believe that there was a rift between Sri Jayendra Saraswathi and his predecessor, Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi. Nevertheless, the facts are there on the record. A day or two after Sri Jayendra Saraswathi was found at Talacauvery in Karnataka, Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi, in an unusual gesture, convened the journalists and accorded them an interview. He praised the junior Shankaracharya for his selfless act and praiseworthy aspirations and expressly asked him to return to the Matham. (The facts were reported by The Hindu and other national newspapers end of August 1987.)

article does not falsely report a disagreement between CS and JS. it argues that JS's actions do not conform to CS's directions. it accurately reports instances where CS found JS's actions "acceptable". Doldrums 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, if it is taken as a fact that CS agreed with JS on his 'Social' agenda, I don't know where the inference that 'JS's actions do not confirm CS's directions' originate from. This staement has no proof of validity. --Vallabai 04:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It is true, as Mr. Viswanathan states, that during Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s absence, “Sri Vijayendra Saraswathi, who had already been chosen by Jayendra Saraswathi as his successor, was anointed as the 70th head of the Mutt by the Paramacharya.” But the post was restored to Sri Jayendra Saraswathi on his return to the Matham, in keeping with his Guru’s wishes. Therefore, it can be said that Sri Jayendra Saraswathi has had the unique privilege of having been chosen twice as disciple and successor by the highly revered Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi: the first time when the young lad of 19 was initiated by the senior Acharya in March 1954 and the second time in September 1987 when he was reinstated on the Pitha. So all the critics who appeal to the leadership of Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi to downgrade Sri Jayendra Saraswathi either ignore the facts or misconstrue them to serve their own purposes.

not a dispute with the article. presents a pov different from the article. Doldrums 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not a mere POV. This is a 'fact' based on other statements the author himself made in the original article. --Vallabai 04:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In his determination to brand Sri Jayendra Saraswathi as communal-minded, Mr. Viswanathan writes: “Significantly, Jayendra Saraswathi did not condemn the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992.” This statement is totally false. I refer you to the Rediff interview of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, accessible at: http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/22inter.htm. The Shankaracharya is reported to have declared:

“It is regrettable, and the majority of Hindus regret that the structure was demolished. But the issue is closed: now there is no sense in retaining the land as an empty space, we should worship Ram there. On December 6, a group of Hindus did demolish the structure. But for most Hindus, this was a black day, that it was destroyed thus. There was no clear verdict from the court case. The adjacent lands belong to the Muslim Waqf Board. If the Muslims and the Hindus can get together and donate all the land to the government, the problem will go away. Now there is no more controversy about whether it is Ram or Babri. It is no longer an issue whether it is Ram's place, but only whose land it is. There are many Hindus who have sympathy for Muslim grievances. The best way to turn this black mark into a white mark is to give the land to the government. This will show the world that we can live in harmony. Hindus may even be prepared to go so far as to relinquish their rights to the Kashi and Mathura temples that have been occupied by Muslims, in the interest of the unity and amity of Hindus and Muslims in India. This cannot be settled in court, but only in the heart.”

regret is not condemnation, especially if the regret is followed by a desire to make use of the end result of the regretted action. quote does not demonstrate condemnation. Doldrums 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this shows the prejudice of our friend 'Doldrums' towards JS. What is the difference between 'Condemnation' and 'Regret'? 'Condemnation' totally dismisses one section's POV and 'Regret' accommodates both sides' POV. This assumes that the whole incident is a fault of one side. And makes JS 'guilty by association'. --Vallabai 04:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If the Shankaracharya were a narrow-minded Hindu communalist, why then did both Christian and Muslim religious leaders protest his arrest in strong terms? In effect, on Sri Jayendra Saraswati’s arrest the All India Organisation of Imams of Mosques (AIOIM) issued the following statement:

"AIOIM notes with consternation and deep regret the actions of the Tamil Nadu government and politicians that have culminated in the arrest of the highly respected Shankaracharya. The entire Muslim society is saddened and shocked with this reprehensible action…The Muslim community hold the seer with great respect, particularly in view of his constructive approach in solving Ayodhya problem and hope the government will not allow inimical groups to subvert impartial inquiry and application of law in his case."

The facts show that Sri Jayendra Saraswathi did all he could to bring an amicable solution agreeable to both parties in the Ram Jammabhoomi-Babri Masjid issue. See, for example, the articles by Saeed Naqvi, the internationally respected Muslim journalist, accessible at:

http://www.indianexpress.com/columnists/saee/20020308.html. Mr. Naqvi wrote:

“Why am I so positive about the Shankaracharya’s intervention? For five years I edited a newspaper chain from Chennai where I was acquainted with the present Shankaracharya’s late guru, the great Paramacharya, a saint and a scholar. One of his charming suggestions to every Muslim who called on him was to visit the mosque adjacent to his abode in Kanchi. Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati is part of that tolerant tradition. After the fall of the Babri Masjid some RSS leaders drafted for him a statement which they thought would please him. He put a pencil through the statement and said: “Hindus and Muslims must live in this country like Ram and Lakshman.” Three days ago when I reminded him of the statement, he laughed: “Minds have been so poisoned in recent years that if I make the same statement the communities demand clarifications as to which of the two is Ram and which Lakshman.” He told the prime minister (as he did earlier the VHP leaders) that “building a Ram temple illegally was an insult to Maryada Puroshottam”. After a tour of temples in north India he remarked, “There are so many important temples in disrepair. Do we need new temples or is it important to light lamps in great temples lying in neglect?” This, then, is the mind of the religious leader of the Hindus as he has come to the capital to address himself to the Ayodhya issue.” (See another article by the same author at:

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=26085. See also “Seer’s Solution” by Debarshish Mukerji at: http://www.the-week.com/23jul06/cover.htm.)

Bizarrely enough, Mr. Viswanathan reports certain social, educational and medical projects undertaken by Sri Jayendra Saraswathi which no right-thinking person would ever condemn. But, invariably, Mr. Viswanathan sits in judgment and finds fault with the presumed motives behind the Shankaracharya’s activities. Take, for example, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s concern for the Dalits, whom he has tried to integrate socially, religiously and professionally. Mr. Viswanathan’s casts doubts on the Shankaracharya’s efforts by quoting supposed “activists” as saying that “Dalits, with high awareness about their rights, would not be taken in by such temptations as assistance and concessions, except the aged and the infirm who are accustomed to living as dependants of caste Hindus.” What is the Shankaracharya supposed to do? If he does not help the downtrodden, he is blamed for casteism; but when he does reach out to the Dalits, Mr. Viswanathan and his ilk accuse him of trying to “take the Dalits in.” Of course, Mr. Viswanathan does not do it in his own name, because the facts will not substantiate his accusations. Instead, he attributes his unfounded charges to anonymous “observers,” “activists,” etc.

article reports JS's statement for dalits to be "clean and hygienic" and reports dalit activists' view on it. Doldrums 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Again this has to be viewed in context. --Vallabai 04:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Or take again, the growing social, educational and medical activities of the Kanchi Sankara Matham under the leadership of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi. Mr. Viswanathan avows that “Many educational institutions, including a university, have come up. A big multi-specialty hospital located close to Chennai and a reputed hospital for childcare are also said to have been bought over.” What our journalist forgets to mention is that these educational and medical institutions cater to the underprivileged sectors of society free of charge or at nominal fees. Nor does he give a true picture of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s initiatives: over 50 schools, and a large number of hospitals, child-care centers, charitable trusts for aiding poor families, old-age homes, food donation projects, rural development trusts, research projects, and professional colleges throughout India. Instead, Mr. Viswanathan presents these services in a bad light by writing: “All these deals have been struck in the name of public trusts. Some observers feel that these activities have the potential to take the Mutt close to all kinds of undesirable elements.”

"deals" refer to reported "large-scale entry by the mutt in the real estate business". Doldrums 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
the word "deals" always carry a negative connotation in every day English. So, if one uses this term, one is obligated to clarify what one means. --Vallabai 04:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

“Some observers” indeed! I am afraid Mr. Viswanathan does not have the integrity to speak in his own name. His article is replete with unverifiable attributions such as: “many of those present wondered,” “these organizations reportedly had,” “according to some expert studies,” “…allegedly attempted,” “were said to be,” “moves like this are seen as a…,” “activists say that…,” “observers say,” “he allegedly made,” “is alleged to have said,” “Some observers feel,” “According to political observers,” “Many old-timers worried about…,” etc. And every last one of these allegations from unverifiable sources is preceded or followed by an unfavorable judgment about Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s actions and intentions.

agree that unverifiable statements have been reported, and point out that these have passed editorial scrutiny in an established news source. Doldrums 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This review is already longer than I had intended. So I will not take up point by point all the instances where Mr. Viswanathan passes unjustified judgment on Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s initiatives by questioning his motives rather than presenting the facts. I ask of you, Mr./Ms. Fasten, to go through the Frontline article with reference to the anonymous attributions which I have listed above in their order of appearance in the text. You will note that each such unverifiable attribution appears in a context where a commendable action by the Shankaracharya is put into question by doubts raised about the motive behind the action. Of course, there are cases where it is legitimate to question a person’s motives. But in such a case, the reasons should be clearly stated and not merely insinuated.

Mr. Viswanathan does not justify his accusations. He merely makes sweeping statements about the Shankaracharya’s “political pursuits” and his “ambitions.” But the facts as presented by Mr. Viswanathan himself do not support his allegations. If Sri Jayendra Saraswathi were out to fulfill his personal ambitions, why would he abdicate his prestigious and powerful seat of Shankaracharya in the first place? And if he were a mere political climber, why would he antagonize the powers-that-be in Tamil Nadu and at the Centre by criticizing them, as reported by Mr. Viswanathan himself? Or again, if his purpose were to “reach the summit,” as Mr. Viswanathan puts it, why would he be so outspoken about “men and matters” and risk being sidelined, as has been the case for the moment?

Mr. Viswanathan suggests Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s leadership is to be blamed for communal clashes in Tamilnadu. But it so happens that Human Rights Watch has published extensive findings on the subject, indicting Jayalalithaa’s AIADMK and other political parties were responsible for these clashes. In no way does the HRW report connect the name or activities of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi to this issue. (A link to the report by HRW has been provided by someone in this talk page itself, which you may wish to access.) Thus apparently the sole objective of the article is to blame Sri Jayendra Saraswathi for any commission or omission of any sort in Tamilnadu

One could argue that for his inter-communal peace-making missions, for his support of the Dalits, for his innumerable welfare, medical and educational achievements, in addition to his traditional spiritual ministrations, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. That he did not get it because he didn’t fit into the pattern and schemes of the Western power is understandable. What is not understandable is the hostile attitude of the so-called “progressive” and “secular” elements in India. In the days of Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi, the same elements used to complain: “Why is it that we Indians need a Mother Theresa to come and succor our people? Why don’t our own holy men tend to the downtrodden and disabled of the land?” Now that Sri Jayendra Saraswathi has been doing just that, the very same people brand his welfare and social activities as “business deals” and exclaim: “Why doesn’t he limit himself to rituals as did his predecessors?”

Mr./Ms. Fasten, I’m afraid the Frontline cover story is clearly biased and contains major errors of fact. The inclusion of such articles could expose wikipedia to avoidable criticisms. Wikipedia cannot rely on such pieces to inform the public, much less sustain the research of serious students and scholars. F. Walker 10:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

i am prepared to retain the frontline article with a qualified citation (such as "critical view"), not remove it altogether on the basis of the issues pointed out. this is because the issues pointed out largely allege that the article has pov, but do not demonstrate a factual error. i agree that the article does have a a modest degree of pov. with the arguable exception of the vaguely attributed quotes, imo, there are no violations of typical journalistic standards. i point out that many of the other sources listed, the "fan sites", have similar pov issues and suffer from lack of balanced coverage of the "good" and "bad" of JS's career. calling for the removal of this article will require application of similar standards of accuracy/balance to those sources too, especially as they are not identified as "fan sites".
as numurous issues have been pointed out, have used short, "punchy" rebuttals. am prepared to discuss at length issues that are identified as significant. i have again resorted to interleaving my comments in a post, as i think it is easier to discuss each issue by itself rather than a back-and-forth of batches of issues.
Doldrums 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the article, in addition to expressing a very strong POV is also flawed based on its fundamental premise that JS has associated with the 'communal parties'. It creates a very negative image of the Head of an institution that is millenia years old. It is egregious in making certain unsupportable assumptions about JS. So, this article should not be included in the citation.
--Vallabai 04:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you please point out what you consider the most biased issues of the article? Could you possibly accept an inclusion of the article if these issues where rectified or if their bias was revealed in the wikipedia article? Wikipedia aims to describe facts from different points of view, if different views are reported by reputable sources. If you do not consider this article a reputable sources please specify if you view the article, the author(s) or the publisher as non-reputable. I'd also ask you to consider Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources. --Fasten 12:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr./Ms. Fasten : The Frontline article is indeed biased in many ways. To prove this, I have pointed out inaccurate, distorted or false assertions contained therein. Examples: 1) Mr. Viswanathan suggests a rift between Sir Jayendra Saraswathi and his preceptor Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi. I refer you to an article in “The Hindu” dated August 28, 1987 reporting the interview accorded by the senior Shankaracharya to journalists in which he praised his disciple and requested that he return to the Matham; 2) Mr. Viswanathan says Sri Jayendra Saraswathi did not condemn the destruction of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid. I have cited at least three articles showing that Mr. Viswanathan’s assertion is blatantly false; 3) If as Mr. Viswanathan asserts, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi only had nationalist Hindu interests in mind, why then would Mr. Saeed Naqvi and the All India Organisation of Imams of Mosques (both quoted above) speak so highly of him and praise him for his impartial efforts to solve the Ayodhya issue?; 4) Mr. Viswanathan himself says that the Shankaracharya has helped the Dalits. But instead of giving him credit for this, he suspects ulterior motives behind the Acharya’s salutary actions; 5) Again instead of praising Sankara Matham’s welfare and social activities, Mr. Viswanathan cites “some observers” who feel that “these activities have the potential to take the Mutt close to all kinds of undesirable elements;” 6) Almost everyone of Mr. Viswanathan’s “facts” comes from unverifiable sources, and they are all intended to influence the reader’s opinion of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi negatively.

If all the errors and the bias were rectified so as to make the article acceptable by Wiki standards, I am afraid hardly anything would remain of it. When statements about facts in an article are shown to be definitely false, then the article should be removed irrespective of the status of the source in which it has appeared.F. Walker 19:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's Mr. Fastenrath, fasten is only half a name as my name was too long as a login name when I got my first account.

[edit] Please aim for a common view

Doldrums, you accept that the article is biased. Do you think the view represented in the article is import enough to be reported as a biased view which is noteworthy? If you think so please explain why. --Fasten 10:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

the reasons for including the article are:
  1. it adds useful information, background and context to the shankaracharya's life and work.
  2. its views are noteworthy, Frontline is a mainstream Indian news magazine, its author is an established journalist and writer on Dalit affairs.
  3. sources in the wiki article (kanchi-satya, kanchi-forum) are clearly partisan in their coverage and removal of all other sources will result in a pov article.
  4. the wiki article makes assertions about the media coverage of the shankaracharya's arrest, i think it is fair that some media coverage be listed in the article sources.
Doldrums 15:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
How would you describe the bias of the article? Maybe we can find a wording that is acceptable for your fellow editors, so it should be brief and at the same time clearly state that the article describes a possibly biased position. I gather you agree it does? --Fasten 11:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
sorry for a late response. missed seeing Fasten's comment. my belief is that the bias is mild, well within what is acceptable for a mainstream magazine article and within limits acceptable for not specifically labelling it as biased (note that the article mostly reports rather than comments; reports responses of the "other side", reports facts which are contrary its view). to me the ideal situation is if we can find a similar source which takes a slightly positive view of JS and dont cite both as biased.
finding a suitably mild term suggesting bias might be difficult. Frontline has an editorial viewpoint, in the sense that the british broadsheets like the The Daily Telegraph, The Times and The Guardian do. The view, i believe, is left of centre/progressive (but i'll have to look for sources to substantiate this). Doldrums 08:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Vallabai, your argumentation appears very biased to me. The age of the institution and Jayendra Saraswathi's position in the institution are irrelevant. Let me compare it with the infallibility of the pope. This is not an argument that a serious observer would bring to his defense in any dispute. --Fasten 10:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Fastenrath,

Please point out my bias based on my comments previous to the comment you cite, if any. It is not irrlevant at all to bring in the age of the institution and the position of JS representing the said institution by JS to the issue at hand - that there is an association with communalism. It is akin to saying that because the Klu Klux Klan (KKK) practiced 'Christianity' Pope is culpable for it's actions. The only way to disprove this point is to rely on the traditions of Christianity which consistently eschewed such philosophies practiced by KKK and to validly make an assumption that as the Head of an institution with such traditions, the Pope would not endorse such views contrary to the basic philosophy of the said institution. Otherwise one has to prove their point conclusively with evidence if one believes the contrary view, which is definitely not the case here. Please enlighten if I have said something not logical or with bias here.

--Vallabai 06:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to assume that a person representing an organisation must adhere to the basic philosophy of the organisation. There have been many popes in christian history that did not adhere to the basic philosophy of christianity, in spite of their office. The argumentation that 'if news contradict this believe than the news are flawed' is illogical and it would forbid to spread a very relevant piece of information: A failure to adhere to the basic philosophy of an organisation by an important representative of that organisation. Given the importance of such an incident one could argue that it is more important to spread justified doubt than to prevent false accusation. The relation you describe between the KKK and the pope doesn't seem to have an analogy in the article. --Fasten 10:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Fastenrath,

No, I am not assuming what you say I am assuming at all. Yes, there have been Popes who acted contrary to the basic philosophies of the institution. But, in those instances, one could easily prove that those Popes acted against such philosophies. Here one can not prove that JS has had any participation in the communal activity just because of an association with a national political party such as BJP. This is guilt by association. So, my point is that, based on the traditions and philosophies of an institution, one has to conclusively PROVE that the person representing that institution has not followed those traditions and philosophies. Otherwise, one has no business in tarnishing anyone's image without any proof. It is rediculous to throw around names of institutions, labeling them 'communal' and ascribe the association to a person and 'demonise' him or her this way. The reason for the 'KKK' analogy is to illustrate this point.
Dear Sir, while you make accusations such as 'you are biased', 'no serious observer would bring such an argument', you still have not answered my question about citing my alleged bias. It is very easy to throw around words like these without any logical foundation. I was establishing the fact that the article is biased. And, by the way, when you state that 'Given the importance of such an incident one could argue that it is more important to spread justified doubt than to prevent false accusation', can you tell me what a'justified doubt' is? Can you tell me whether it exists in this case? If so, can you tell me what it is?
I am sorry to say this, but seems like you do not bring any logical foundation to your arguments and you are 'shouting down' the 'opposite' arguments that do not agree with your pre conceived notions about religion. Otherwise you will mark the instances where I have been 'biased'. Thank you.

--Vallabai 03:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Vallabai : Use of the word egregious and the non-sensical claim to the age of the institution led me to believe that your approach to the matter is non-scientific. The term "biased" may have been to harsh. I am not shouting down opposite arguments because I do not have a position in this matter. The incident I was referring to was hypothetical and not aimed at Sri Jayendra Saraswathi. I'm sorry for the late response, too. --Fasten 15:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

F. Walker, I think we have established a certain bias in the article. Is it possible that the article represents a noteworthy public opinion anyway?

  • It could be noteworthy that the publisher considers this an acceptable representation.
  • It could be noteworthy that certain views are held by a certain audience.
  • It might even be interesting to reveal the bias in some of the claims made in the article, if they can be revealed as bias by wikipedia standards. The neutral position of wikipedia is not established by suppressing opposing views but by explaining opposing views. --Fasten 10:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Side note

I've noticed that none of you has a user page, don't you think it would be nice to at least reveal some basic information about yourself to your fellow editors? I think that a little bit more community can help to avoid conflicts. --Fasten 10:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

there is this school of thought that a wiki editor is his/her edits. :) Doldrums 15:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
There are also people who claim the perfect compression algorithm compresses every input to a single bit, only it lacks a matching uncompression algorithm. --Fasten 10:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] concerning frontline

Mr. Fastenrath: I for one appreciate your efforts to introduce some methodology and serenity here.

The fact is that public opinion is formed, not to say manipulated in certain instances, by the press. Once negative opinion is engendered by biased articles one cannot marshal such public opinion to justify the inclusion of the very articles having created the opinion. That would involve us in a truly vicious circle.

You say: “It could be noteworthy that the publisher considers this (view) an acceptable representation.” I would be prepared to consider this as a criterion under the following condition: let those who insist on including the link to Mr. Viswanathan’s piece show us another article published in “Frontline” magazine prior to 11/11/04 in which the same sort of criticisms are leveled against Sri Jayendra Saraswathi. This would be the test to show whether or not the publisher considers Mr. Viswanathan’s views as “acceptable.”

That test is insufficient as the absence of such criticism prior to 11/11/04 would mean very little. We also do not have anybody who claims that the article is noteworthy because the publisher considers this view relevant, it was just an example what might be a reason for the inclusion of a biased article. --Fasten 12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This indeed is the crux of the matter. If not the general public at least serious researchers have the right to know why the Indian media began, overnight on “11/11”, to project a negative image of the Shankaracharya of Kanchi? Were the media and the printed press asleep prior to the murder allegations of the Tamil Nadu authorities? And why have they not accorded front page space to the pronouncements of the Supreme Court of India vigorously contesting the involvement of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi in the murder. There is not only political vendetta here but also malafide intentions and character assassination by a large sector of the media. (It would be interesting to undertake, at wikipedia or elsewhere, a serious study of such press abuse. I would be grateful to you, Mr. Fasternath, if you could inform me about a special section at wikipedia devoted to such studies.)

I don't think an encyclopedia needs such a section. I recommend you propose that on n:Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals. --Fasten 12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

After all, if it is background information about SJS we want for Wiki - information which is not influenced or tainted by the contested murder allegations - why not give links to a pre-11/11 “Frontline” article, for example the interview he accorded to “Frontline,” which Mr. Viswanathan has mentioned?

So you would recommend to include pre-11/11 articles instead of the suggested articles? What is your opionion on this Doldrums? --Fasten 12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
i have no a-priori objection to including any other source in addition to this one. if it has to be instead of, then we'll have to look at that article and (unless that article substantially includes the material(facts & views) in this article) still address the question of why this article has to be removed.
going by the discussion, it seems that the case being made is that this article ought to be removed because it has a pov. but having a pov does not automatically disqualify a source in any way (to provide an example, the new york times or the washington post is accused of being biased against george w. bush, but that by itself does not mean that all articles in those publications, or even articles critical of bush in those publications are summarily removed.) according to npov, articles which espouse a "small minority" pov can be removed, but that doesn't apply to articlse in mainstream media (especially, one whose tone is similar to that of most media coverage of this subject).
my suggestion is to include this article and include others which offer any other views of JS, positive and negative, to include material speculative or otherwise, on why the media coverage of JS was what it was (but no original research). Doldrums 06:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely, Mr. Fastenrath, that opposing views should not be suppressed but dialogued with and criticized in a scientific and scholarly manner. I am prepared to submit a coherent criticism of Mr. Viswananthan’s article if you can guarantee its inclusion alongside the piece from “Frontline.”

I'm not in a position to make any guarantees except for the guarantee that I have no personal interest in the article whatsoever and that I have no intend to edit the article. I would suggest you give us the general outline of your criticism and then we discuss its inclusion with your fellow editors. --Fasten 12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
just wanted to point out that substantial criticism (or for that matter, defense of) an article by a wiki editor cannot be included in an artile due to no original research, the alternative is to source that criticism from another published source and to frame the citation of the frontline article appropriately (i've made one such suggestion earlier), and by consensus. Doldrums 07:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your kind suggestion that we give some basic information about ourselves, I will first have to learn how to fill out the user page. I am quite old and unfortunately have difficulty understanding the ways of the Internet. F. Walker 11:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The user page is your personal wikipedia article. You can write whatever information you are willing to give about yourself or your work on wikipedia. The user page is edited like any other article. You can start with adding userboxes that show others what languages you speak and (e.g.) your regional political views. You can also write a view lines about yourself, your education, your interests and your work as a wikipedia editor. --Fasten 12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dispute resolution

Mr. Fastenrath: Thank you for information about the user page and its content.I shall try to learn in the days to come.

For the rest, I have this in common with you that I don’t have an axe to grind one way or the other. About substituting one article for another, my view is that unless the aim is objectivity, nothing worthwhile will be achieved by such substitution. For it is always possible to find “pro or con” articles, to quote Mr./Ms. Doldrum’s approach to the matter. Some people’s view here seems to be that Wiki is a football match and there are two teams on the field dishing it out. This is most unfortunate.

I do not say that the pre- or post-11/11 appearance of an article is a sufficient criterion. But I do say that if the same source of information – in this case a magazine – has radically changed its portrait of someone without giving valid reasons for the change something is wrong there.

If the aim is objectivity, it seems obvious that articles containing bias and errors of fact ought to be excluded irrespective of their date of appearance. I have already given above my general criticism of the Frontline article. I have pointed out factual errors, and you yourself have already agreed that the article is biased. Therefore its removal seems a necessity. F. Walker 13:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't assign any authority to me in this matter. My observation was that the comments of editors of the wikipedia article seemed to have indicated agreement on the fact that the frontline article is not free of bias. --Fasten 15:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
i dont'acknowledge any errors of fact. many candidates were listed and am prepared to discuss whether the significant ones (a few please) are in fact errors or not. Doldrums 07:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Doldrums, I have answered each one of your comments above to show that your arguments are invalid. When you do not address each point, this blanket statement from you is illogical and astonishing. --Vallabai 04:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed a certain reluctance to pick up the arguments of the opposing side but instead to fall back to the original statements from several editors. I think we need a more systematic approach to solve this dispute. --Fasten 15:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
on my part, the reluctance stems mostly from having invalid propositions to counter. what is the appropriate response to "this political party is not communal because it is a major opposition group"? yes, the response is to point out the definition of communal and i would have done so, except that i would have to respond to a couple of dozen similar contentions, and i have little inclinations to work that hard to prove something patently obvious. which is why i have repeatedly pointed out distinctions b/w pov an factual errors, asked for significant mistakes to be highlighted so that i can respond, etc. Doldrums 07:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Doldrums, I would very much like to have heard your definition of 'Communal'. Given that it is not defined with any negative connotations in English, it is a word with negative connotations when applied within the context of negative religious / caste divisions within countries like India. I referred to BJP as a main opposition party and therefore not 'communal' only in the sense that if we expand the very narrow definition of this negative word in the Indian context, then surely the party that has been in power in India for more years than any other party, namely the 'Congress' (which is in power in a coalition government right now) must be viewed as 'communal' as well. Their calculated attacks on the Sikh community after the assassination of Indira Gandhi is well documented and admitted. In this sense almost ALL political parties in India can be tagged as 'communa', according to your implied definition. So, please let us not play this selective game. Because to do so will be to not reporting all the facts. Also, perhaps by arguing that you do not have time to argue for something that is 'patently obvious', you again show that you can not refute the facts stated by myself. When one can not refute, it is a very good ploy to suddenly 'rise above' the argument. The truth is, you gave point by point argument and I answered you point by point. And now, having raised these points and having them rebutted point by point, you are saying you will not answer in detail, because somehow the rebuttals are 'patently obviously wrong'. And you claim lack of time. If you do not have time to properly put forth your arguments here, then perhaps you should not be editing this article at all. Just a suggestion. Thanks. --Vallabai 21:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
again, calling another party communal does not substantiate ur claim that the BJP is not. "my implied definition" of communal is the standard definition which u can look up here[20]. if u r going to use the word to mean something different or more specific, i suggest you state ur definition to begin with. Doldrums 13:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Doldrums, again my point is that within your 'dictionary' definition of a 'Communal Party' BJP does not fit in. You are the one who is expanding the definition of this term, not myself. Please substantiate your claim that BJP is a 'Communal Party'. Agreeing with YOUR definition of a 'Communal Party', leaves me with no clear avenue to label BJP as one. Please kindly explain. While you are explaining, please let me know why the 'Congress' party can not be deemed as 'communal'. I am anxiously waiting for your reply, --Vallabai 05:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] list of questionable items

Doldrums, could you please reply to the following list compiled by F. Walker. The position of F. Walker is indeed that the article is mostly assembled from misinformation. --Fasten 15:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Mr. Viswanathan suggests a rift between Sir Jayendra Saraswathi and his preceptor Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi. I refer you to an article in “The Hindu” dated August 28, 1987 reporting the interview accorded by the senior Shankaracharya to journalists in which he praised his disciple and requested that he return to the Matham;
please do not paraphrase. where does the article "suggest a rift"? the closest thing to it that i could find is the first few paragraphs where it contrasts CS's words with JS's actions. where is the factual error in that? are u contesting the accuracy of the quote or the description of the actions?
2. Mr. Viswanathan says Sri Jayendra Saraswathi did not condemn the destruction of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid. I have cited at least three articles showing that Mr. Viswanathan’s assertion is blatantly false;
the rediff interview[21] quotes JS regretting the demolition, followed by a willingness to make use of it. which are the other two articles please?
to condemn and to regret are different. i point to the definitions[22]
condemn : 1 : to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation.
regret: 2 : to be very sorry for.
if someone regrets an action, it need not mean that the person considers the action to be wrong. one can express regret for the loss of life in the hiroshima bombing and support the decision to bomb it, one cannot condemn the bombing and still support the decision to bomb.
others may have a different view on whether the babri masjid demolition requires regret or condemnation or celebration, but that does not make a factual error of the article's statement that JS has not condemned it.
3. If as Mr. Viswanathan asserts, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi only had nationalist Hindu interests in mind, why then would Mr. Saeed Naqvi and the All India Organisation of Imams of Mosques (both quoted above) speak so highly of him and praise him for his impartial efforts to solve the Ayodhya issue?;
where does the article say that JS "only had nationalist Hindu interests in mind"?
4. Mr. Viswanathan himself says that the Shankaracharya has helped the Dalits. But instead of giving him credit for this, he suspects ulterior motives behind the Acharya’s salutary actions;
alleged failure to give credit is not a factual error. whre does the article attribute "ulterior motives"?
5. Again instead of praising Sankara Matham’s welfare and social activities, Mr. Viswanathan cites “some observers” who feel that “these activities have the potential to take the Mutt close to all kinds of undesirable elements;”
if u r contesting whether those observers said it, i am no position to substantiate whether they did or not. i can point to the fact that the article has passed editorial scrutiny by a reputed mainstream newsmagazine. that is the standard of verifiability that wp policy requires. from which i quote

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false.

6. Almost everyone of Mr. Viswanathan’s “facts” comes from unverifiable sources, and they are all intended to influence the reader’s opinion of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi negatively.
regarding truth or o/w of those facts, see above. if the argument is that article is pov, restart this discussion under a pov head.

Did you answer the questions above, Doldrums? There is no signature. --Fasten 15:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

yup. oops. Doldrums 17:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Fastenrath: If you take the trouble to review the discussions above, you will note that time and again I have put precise questions to Mr./Ms. Doldrums about what he/she considers to be the objectives and the underlying policies of wikipedia. And time and again he/she has left my questions unanswered. How can we hope to construct a meaningful dialogue here if, instead of replying to one another’s questions and arguments, we are given each time the same parrot-like “I don’t agree”?

Please refrain from phrases like 'parrot-like'. It is not helpful to insult people and even if that is rather mild wording it can be insulting to some people. --Fasten 15:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Fasternath, I am not trying to invest you with some sort of unfounded authority. You say you have observed that “the comments of editors of the wikipedia article seem to have indicated agreement on the fact that the frontline article is not free of bias.” May I ask a straightforward question: When an article is judged to be “not free of bias,” is it worth retaining it? By retaining such pieces, will we be serving the interests of wikipedia, as a source of reliable information and research? F. Walker 15:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There may be many cases were biased sources can be included as references as long as their bias is properly revealed in the wikipedia article. This has to be decided on a case by case basis. --Fasten 15:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] source for "no prima facie case"

the wiki article reads

On January 10, 2005, the Supreme Court of India granted him bail, after finding that there was no prima facie case made out against him.[23]

can someone point out (paragraph number would do nicely) where in the judgement cited does it say that no prima facie case has been made, please. Doldrums 10:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

12. Therefore, there should first be a prima facie evidence that the person was a party to the conspiracy before his acts or statements can be used against his co-conspirators. No worthwhile prima facie evidence apart from the alleged confessions have been brought to our notice to show that the petitioner along with A-2 and A-4 was party to a conspiracy.

By the way:

Before parting, we would like to place it on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of disposing of the prayer for bail made by the petitioner. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final opinion on any of the issues of fact or law arising for decision in the case which shall naturally have to be done by the trial court seized of the trial. We have only formed a prima facie opinion and placed the same on record in fairness to the learned senior counsel for the State who raised those pleas and vehemently urged the same by citing various provisions of law and the authorities.

Aren't you assigning too much attention to this document? --Fasten 15:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

me??? Doldrums 16:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. Doldrums: I am afraid you and Wiki advice are not talking about quite the same thing. You say: “i can point to the fact that the article has passed editorial scrutiny by a reputed mainstream newsmagazine.” Then, in support of your argument, you bring in a quote from Wiki in which the word “editors” refers to Wiki editors like us and not to the magazine editors where the article originally appeared.

On the whole, it seems to me that you quote Wiki editorial advice piecemeal to serve your purposes in a given context. You refuse to consider the underlying intentions and the overall purpose of all Wiki advice. Once again, I ask you: are we here to work together to make sure that Wiki articles are as objective and truthful as possible? If this is not the ultimate goal, then please tell us what you consider to be the ultimate goal towards which serious scholars are supposed to strive at wikipedia or anywhere?

Unless there is agreement as to where we are heading, the arguments can go on indefinitely. Regards, F. Walker 16:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

F. Walker, Doldrums did reply to your points (see above), may I ask you to address his reply? --Fasten 18:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. suggested rift:
  2. did not condemn the destruction:
  3. praise for the Ayodhya issue:
  4. ulterior motives behind the Acharya’s salutary actions:
  5. welfare and social activities ... close to all kinds of undesirable elements:
  6. unverifiable sources:

further comments:

fasten, what are the above titles/summaries of the disputed points for? can i move them as headings for the list of diputed items? or are they a place for compiling "results" of the debate? Doldrums 06:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Doldrums, it seemed to me that there has been a lack of communication because the parties of the dispute did not reply to each other's arguments in detail. You did reply to the items 1-6 as given by F. Walker now I kindly ask F. Walker to answer to your replies. --Fasten 20:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Fastenrath: I’m afraid there is a problem of procedure here. I was not even aware that Mr./Ms. Doldrums had answered certain points as suggested by you. This is because of a tendency among the majority of you to insert whatever your remarks within other participants’ writings. Please don’t interpret this as criticism or insult. Only it is a little disconcerting that answers, observations and objections should be thus interspersed in someone else’s text. It may possibly save time for the “intersperser” but certainly not for the person to whom the interspersed elements are addressed. The latter has to go back each time to a much earlier point in the discussion and re-read everything to make sure nothing has escaped his or her attention.

Such dialectical procedure has another and far graver danger.

I think everyone would agree that insertions are inadmissible in the middle of someone else’s sentence. But it should not be thought that they are harmless when placed between two sentences or paragraphs. A series of sentences or paragraphs reflects a certain train of thought, expressed in some sort of descriptive, logical, emotional, or mathematical order. The connection, logical or otherwise, is broken when the opposite of the very thing being said is interposed even before one has finished saying it. And when the connection between two thoughts is broken, not to say negated, the overall message is affected.

As a youngster I was taught that the polite thing is to wait for the other person to finish before replying. But that was a long, long time ago. Internet etiquette, it seems, has come – or gone – a long way. Old-timers like me must adjust or bow out.

I am not bowing out. I shall revert when time allows with “replies to replies.” F. Walker 14:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

F. Walker,
regarding the use of interspersed comments; it is common in internet forums (and even e-mails) to have a conversational "thread", with the various participants distinguishing thier comments by appropriately placed paragraph indentations. such a conversation might go as follows.
Hello, i'm X.
Hello X, i am Y, how are you?
I, X, am well.
in wikipedia pages, the indentations can be created by starting a paragraph with a colon (':'). one for each level of indentaions. the use of such a system is quite common, and is not per-se impolite or an attempt at undermining or disrupting another participant's comment.
regarding our conversation here, i (and others) have interspersed our replies between your comments (especially numbered replies) so that each point can be discussed independent of others. this is an alternative to the debaters replying to each other by essay-like compositions, discussing together, all the points being argued. (this would result in a 'pro' essay, followed by a 'con' essay, followed by a 'pro' rebuttal, ... etc. the "thread" system localises all debate on a specific point into one thread, rather than leaving it scattered as a part of a number of "essays".
one consequence of this is that new additions to this talk page don't always happen at the bottom of the page. u can check the page's edit history (the "history" link at the top o the page) to check whether any new changes have been made, who has made them, and what it is. u can find more on this at Help:Reader under the head "Tracking Changes". Doldrums 15:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr./Ms. Doldrums: Thank you very much for the technical explanations allowing direct access to the latest additions.

If only for the record, please permit me to say I still think the traditional sequential procedure makes for far greater coherence. This is true from the point of view of both writers and respondents, as well as that of passive readers. The writers can develop their ideas in logical order, uninterrupted. The respondents can give their views in one go, instead of looking here and there for spots for point- by- point insertions before giving their global opinion somewhere else. As for occasional readers, surely they must find the present protocol confusing. Before they have read A’s view in full, they have to deal with B’s opposite view, and at times with that of C contradicting B. Then after all these gymnastics, they have to go back, reread the whole thing and try to knit together A’s disjointed fabric of thought.

As I see it, the present set up is most advantageous for those who want to disrupt rather than debate constructively. Certainly the technology is impressive. But I can’t help wondering if, in the end, such technology does not only set the pace but also dictate the logic and hence the content of the debate.

Old fogey’s like me have to learn it or lump it. I am not the lumping type. Thank you for your patient assistance once again. I shall revert. F. Walker 15:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Fastenrath: I must first of all say that Mr./Ms. Doldrums has not answered my questions; he has merely responded to the points raised by you. Before answering his/her replies, as requested by you, allow me to repeat again some of my questions to which Mr./Ms. Doldrums has not given any answers. For example, on at least two occasions I asked:

“Are we here to work together to make sure that Wiki articles are as objective, factual and truthful as possible? If this is not the ultimate goal, then please tell us what you consider to be the ultimate goal towards which serious scholars are supposed to strive at wikipedia or anywhere? Unless there is agreement as to where we are heading, the arguments can go on indefinitely.”

As to Mr./Ms. Doldrums' answers to the points you asked him/her to discuss, my replies are as follows point by point:

1) Without meaning the least offense, I’m afraid I must say Mr./Ms. Doldrums has a general tendency to take cover behind petrified dictionary definitions of words. Take, for example, the word “rift.” I had said Mr. Viswanathan’s Frontline article wrongly “suggested a rift” between Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi and Sri Jayendra Saraswathi. Downloaded, Mr. Viswanathan’s article amounts to seven pages. The first three pages are nearly all devoted to differences of policy – radical according to the author - between the two Shankaracharyas and the “surprise development” in which the younger Shankaracharya suddenly abandoned his post at the Matham. In an article supposedly about Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s career, nearly half the space has been allotted to his “departure” from his predecessor’s leadership and policies as well as the 1987 episode where he left the Mutt unannounced. In spite of all this, Mr./Ms. Doldrums denies that there is here any suggestion of a rift. “Where does the article ‘suggest a rift’?” he/she asks. Mr./Ms. Doldrums wants me to point to a specific sentence in the text where Mr. Viswanathan says in so many words: “There was a rift between the two.” He/she does not want us to “paraphrase.” But we all know that words do not just have the “frozen” meanings given in dictionaries; they have a wide spectrum of connotations and shades, created not only by the immediate context but by the entire text in which they appear. The historical and cultural background of the matter under discussion can also have an impact on the meaning of . But for purposes best known to himself/herself, time and again Mr./Ms. Doldrums finds it convenient to limit the debate to a single petrified dictionary meaning chosen by himself/herself.

As I had given a reference to an article in “The Hindu” in which Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi praised his successor’s efforts and aspirations, Mr. Ms. Doldrums felt obliged to deny that the Frontline article suggested any differences between the two Acharyas. But what about that other article which Mr./Ms. Doldrums defends and to which I object, the BBC “Profile” of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi. In this article readers are told that Sri Jayendra Saraswathi “once ran away from the Kanchi Shankara Mutt in the 1980s following differences with a senior cleric.” Will this statement - blatantly false in the light of the arguments and references I gave in my critical analysis of the Frontline article – convince Mr./Ms. Doldrums to at least agree to the removal of the link to the BBC Profile? (Answer, please.)

To return to Mr. Viswanathan’s article, no Mr./Ms. Doldrums, I am not just “contesting the accuracy of the quote or the description of the actions” (though it is not clear which actions you are referring to). What I am strongly objecting to is the entire article clearly designed to brand Sri Jayendra Saraswathi as “communal.” (Please, Mr./Ms. Doldrums, don’t come back and ask me to quote a specific phrase where Mr. Viswanathan says in so many words “Jayendra Saraswathi is communal.” And please don’t just say I am “paraphrasing.” Ask any educated person to read the article and tell us which of us is, knowingly or unknowingly, misreading Mr. Viswanathan’s overall message and underlying intentions.)

2) With the next point, regarding the destruction of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid, Mr./Ms. Doldrums favorite recourse to dictionary definitions speaks for itself. ‘To condemn’ and ‘to regret’ are not the same, he/she tells us. In the Rediff interview, from which I extensively quoted earlier, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi calls the destruction of the Muslim edifice a “black” mark. But according to Mr./Ms. Doldrums, this is not condemning the destructive act. What is it then? Perhaps Mr./Ms. Doldrums will say “it’s just calling it a black mark.”

In the same interview Sri Jayendra Saraswathi is quoted as saying: “Hindus may even be prepared to go so far as to relinquish their rights to the Kashi and Mathura temples that have been occupied by Muslims, in the interest of the unity and amity of Hindus and Muslims in India. This cannot be settled in court, but only in the heart.” Apparently not everyone understands such an attitude. Otherwise, why would they go on insisting that Sri Jayendra Saraswathi is “communalist” - which, if I am not mistaken, means in a political context “one who defends the interests of his/her community only.”

Mr./Ms. Doldrums, the links to the other articles were already given and are repeated here:

http://www.indianexpress.com/columnists/saee/20020308.html http://www.indianexpress.com/columnists/saee/20020308.html http://www.the-week.com/23jul06/cover.htm

3) Mr./Ms. Doldrums next question is : “where does the article say that JS ‘only had nationalist Hindu interests in mind’?” Mr./Ms. Doldrums, the article doesn’t say so explicitly in one specific place. But the stance of the entire article is that Sri Jayendra Saraswathi had “communal” interests in mind. Why, otherwise, does Mr. Viswanathan labor so hard to wed the Pontiff to “Hindutva forces”? I would have to quote the entire article from end to end to show this. But surely you have read it already. Suffice it to say here that at the very beginning of his article, Mr. Viswanathan underscores Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi's condemnation of communalism and proceeds to heavily contrast this with his successor's "departure from the policy line drawn by the Paramacharya." Later on in the article he links Sri Jayendra Saraswathi's name on at least three occasions to "Hindutva forces."

4) Regarding the interest shown by the Shankaracharya for the welfare of Dalits, Mr./Ms. Doldrums asks me “where does the article attribute “ulterior motives”?” Mr. Viswanathan has written: “Keen to rope in their (Dalits’) support, the pontiff took steps in recent years to appease this section through welfare activities.” I refer you to your dictionary, Mr./Ms. Doldrums, which will surely give you the definition – the literal as well as the figurative – of the transitive verb “to rope in.” If this is not ascribing ulterior motives, then I don’t know what is.

5) Mr. Viswanathan writes: “Many educational institutions, including a university, have come up. A big multi-speciality hospital located close to Chennai and a reputed hospital for childcare are also said to have been bought over. Besides, there has been large-scale entry by the mutt in the real estate business, say observers.

All these deals have been struck in the name of public trusts. Some observers feel that these activities have the potential to take the mutt close to all kinds of undesirable elements.”

Mr./Ms. Doldrums, I am not asking you to tell me who did or did not “say ” these things. I am saying Mr. Viswanathan should have identified his sources. We have here two extremely short paragraphs where the information is attributed to unidentified individuals (with such links as “are said to have,” “observers say” and “some observers feel”). This warrants one to question the reliability of the information given, especially as the final sentence – the punch line, so to speak – links the Matham to “undesirable elements.” Is it fair, I ask, to make such grave statements and then attribute them to “some observers”?

(Mr. Fastenrath, should you desire a more elaborate linguistic analysis of the Frontline article, I will gladly undertake it. As a sample of what can be done, let us take the two short paragraphs above. The first sentence says: “Many educational institutions, including a university, have come up.” The action is rendered impersonal here, as if the institutions, including a university, had “come up” of their own. This is to avoid giving credit to Sri Jayendra Saraswathi for his achievements in the field of education. As for the multi-specialty hospital and the reputed hospital for child-care, “they are said to have been bought over.” Note the use of the passive voice here, again for the purpose of not giving credit to the human agent accomplishing the act. Note also the verb “to buy over” with its aggressive commercial connotations. The author could have said “these institutions have been acquired by the Kanchi Sankara Matham” even if he preferred not to add that the acquisition was made to help the underprivileged sectors of society. But he has chosen the verb “to buy over” so as to prepare the reader for what follows: “real estate business,” according to “observers”; “deals struck in the name of public trusts”; and association with “all kinds of undesirable elements,” according to what “some observers feel.” We are not given any details about the “real-estate business.” For example, we are not told that it is housing for the poor or what not; we are simply informed that it is “large-scale.” The inimical intentions of a phrase such as “large-scale business” are clearly evident here. (Mr./Ms. Doldrums, please don’t come back with the dictionary meaning of “real estate” and say “There is nothing pejorative about the real-estate business.” The author is talking here about a religious institution and accusing Sri Jayendra Saraswathi of striking deals and associating with undesirable elements. All this throws a totally different light on dictionary glosses, of which you seem so fond of.) And contrary to what Mr./Ms. Doldrums has written, the phrase “all these deals” doesn’t refer back just to real-estate; it covers all the items in the previous paragraph, including the hospitals, schools and the university. The choice of the word “deal” is not haphazard; it serves the author’s purpose, which is to abuse rather than to praise. And to make matters worse, the “deals” are said to have been struck “in the name of” public trusts. Now, what is the import of the expression “in the name of” in this context? It clearly implies some sort of not quite honest doings. Mr. Fastenrath, this was just a sample. The entire article is verbally and factually biased. If I were to undertake a thorough linguistic analysis I would begin with the very first words of the article: “Jayendra Saraswathi’s interests extended…” Why is it that the polite term of address, “Sri,” is used consistently in reference to Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi but never once in the article before Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s name? What exactly does this difference of treatment signify? Does it mean that the author, Mr. Viswanathan, personally has great respect for Sir Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi but not for Sri Jayendra Saraswathi? If so, Mr. Viswanathan should be informed that he is unwittingly disrespectful of the Paramacharya. For it was the Paramacharya himself who chose Sri Jayendra Saraswathi as his disciple – not once but twice. To disrespect the latter is to disrespect the former.)

5) “Mr./Ms. Doldrums further writes: “if u r contesting whether those observers said it, i am no position to substantiate whether they did or not. i can point to the fact that the article has passed editorial scrutiny by a reputed mainstream newsmagazine. that is the standard of verifiability that wp policy requires. from which i quote "Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true.”

Mr./Ms. Doldrums, I must, without meaning the least offense, confess that this piece of writing – no doubt typed in great haste – is not quite clear to me. But from what I can make of it, it would appear that you and “Wiki advice” are not talking about quite the same thing. You say: “i can point to the fact that the article has passed editorial scrutiny by a reputed mainstream newsmagazine.” Then, in support of your argument, you bring in a quote from Wiki in which the word “editors” refers to Wiki editors like us and not to the magazine editors where the article originally appeared.

6) Your position is that any article having appeared in a “mainstream news magazine” can be relied on to build up an encyclopaedia. But that is just the question here. My position is that, mainstream or not, all sources should be carefully examined - and rejected if found to contain bias and falsehood. Most of the other participants here seem to be of the same opinion regarding the Frontline article.

Mr. Fastenrath, for reasons given here and more elaborately in my earlier critical review of the Frontline article, I can only repeat what I wrote there: I’m afraid the Frontline "cover story" is clearly biased and contains major errors of fact. The inclusion of such articles could expose wikipedia to avoidable criticisms. Wikipedia cannot rely on such pieces to inform the public, much less sustain the research of serious students and scholars. F. Walker 16:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] next round of questions

F. Walker, myself I have a mixed attitude towards replies within the text of another person. This can be useful and it can be disturbing. I think it is a matter of common sense and good judgement to decide when it is appropriate and when it is not. The template of questions I offered, and which both of you ignored, is meant to make it easier to answer to the relevant points of others without writing indented replies into their text. You (or, this time, Doldrums) can write your text under the corresponding headers (I changed the style of the template to make the intend more obvious). You can also continue to answer under the corresponding headers, splitting the discussion into one thread of discussion for each of the points.

I do think that we have achieved a progress in the discussion by focusing on the individual points of the argument.


I'd kindly ask Doldrums to answer to these questions (numbered as above) and add any questions I may have missed, of course. --Fasten 20:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] suggested rift

  • Will this statement - blatantly false in the light of the arguments and references I gave in my critical analysis of the Frontline article – convince Mr./Ms. Doldrums to at least agree to the removal of the link to the BBC Profile? (Answer, please.)
short answer is no. i point out that other news sources also report differences b/w the two acharyas during the '87 "disappearence":
statements by CS that he had no differences with JS on the occasion of the '87 disappearence make the existence of such differecnes debatable, not false altogether (unless one assumes that the shankaracharyas are incapable of lying). presumably these news sources saw it fit to conclude that there were differences, notwithstanding the acharyas' denial, given the circumstances of the disappearence.
regarding the "differences" reported in the frontline article, walker states that "The first three pages are nearly all devoted to differences of policy". my question to walker is whether he is arguing that the reported "differences" are factually incorrect? or whether he is arguing that the factual statements in the article are true but he disagrees with the assertion (one not made in the article!) that the reported facts demonstrate a "rift" between the two. this is important because because an editor disagreeing with the assertions of a source is not sufficient grounds for deleting the source.
if the argument is that there are false factual statements in the article, which ones are they?
walker states, "What I am strongly objecting to is the entire article clearly designed to brand Sri Jayendra Saraswathi as “communal.”" to my knowledge, editor's objections to thier perception of the intent of a source is not a valid ground for deleting a source. Doldrums 11:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] did not condemn the destruction

  • But according to Mr./Ms. Doldrums, this is not condemning the destructive act. What is it then? Perhaps Mr./Ms. Doldrums will say “it’s just calling it a black mark.”
i quote JS's statement from the rediff interview.

On December 6, a group of Hindus did demolish the structure. But for most Hindus, this was a black day, that it was destroyed thus. [...] Now there is no more controversy about whether it is Ram or Babri. It is no longer an issue whether it is Ram's place, but only whose land it is. There are many Hindus who have sympathy for Muslim grievances. The best way to turn this black mark into a white mark is to give the land to the government. This will show the world that we can live in harmony.

what a "black day" means will have to be substantiated. in particular, that it means condemnation and is not simply reiterating the "regret" he expresses earlier. he also states that now that the (condemned!) demolition has taken place, "now there is no sense in retaining the land as an empty space, a we should worship Ram there". willingness to make use of the fruits of a "condemned" action does not appear to me to be condemnation.
there is a moral distinction between expressing regret and condemnation over an action. condemnation implies that the act is wrong, regret by itself, does not. it simply says that the act has sad or unfortunate results. i've pointed out the meanings or the word, and explained the difference, with a example. i am not quite sure how else i have to explain this over agin.
i could not find a condemnation of the masjid demolition in the other links u provided (indian express & the week articles), perhaps u can point them out (by quoting the statement here) Doldrums 11:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] praise for the Ayodhya issue

  • Why, otherwise, does Mr. Viswanathan labor so hard to wed the Pontiff to “Hindutva forces”?
presumably because he is reporting on JS who associates himself with hindutva forces. Doldrums 11:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ulterior motives behind the Acharya’s salutary actions

  • ... “to rope in.” If this is not ascribing ulterior motives, then I don’t know what is.
the article points out that JS words, such as calling dalits "harijans", calling on them to be "clean and hygienic" and "Take bath and cleanse yourself first, and then claim your right to enter the temple." are not considered appropriate by dalits (who consider 'harijan' to be condescending[24], and who claim that the "be clean" statements are references to the "ritual pollution" ascribed to them by tradition0. he quotes dalit activists' view of JS's efforts to woo the dalits, which is decidedly negative. so i see no problem with using a phrase with a negative connotation to descrive such behavior. i also point out that the author viswanathan, is also a long-standing writer on dalit affairs[25]. Doldrums 12:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] welfare and social activities ... close to all kinds of undesirable elements

  • Is it fair, I ask, to make such grave statements and then attribute them to “some observers”?
it has passed the editorial scrutiny of an established news source. i point out that some of the people awaiting trial on various charges (vishwanathan, ravi subramanian, ...etc) are into real-estate business and are associated with the mutt. Doldrums 12:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unverifiable sources

  • My position is that, mainstream or not, all sources should be carefully examined - and rejected if found to contain bias and falsehood.
  • Then, in support of your argument, you bring in a quote from Wiki in which the word “editors” refers to Wiki editors like us and not to the magazine editors where the article originally appeared.

F. Walker: The Wikipedia Policy on Verifiability asks for verifiability, not truth. That means editors are not encouraged to engage in Original Research but instead to investigate available information and report what appears to be a factually correct consensus of the most reliable sources, possible explaining disputed matters from different angles and revealing possible bias of the sources. I think that you quite correctly state that the article contains overly vague statements (Verifiability: Checking content: The statement is overly vague.) Under checking content the policy also says:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Strong substantive evidence is required to support wilder claims. For example, a newspaper report may be sufficient evidence to support a sports result, but not to support a new detailed mathematical theory. --Fasten 20:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
my position, and i believe the wikipedia position, is that a relevant and informative article from a mainstream news source should not be deleted unless there is a strong case to be made against it (constituting of false reporting or extreme bias). to dismiss such a source simply because its views are unpalatable to some editors goes against npov and verifiability criteria. i have expressed earlier my support for including the sources and identifying them properly, to make clear thier bias, if any. and of course, other sources, which take other views on the subject are welcome, as well.
i would also request critics of the articles to identify clearly whether they consider a statement in te article to be factually incorrect or pov (or both). o/w, it is difficult for me to figure out what it is that i should try to refute. Doldrums 12:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] further comments

  • “Are we here to work together to make sure that Wiki articles are as objective, factual and truthful as possible? If this is not the ultimate goal, then please tell us what you consider to be the ultimate goal towards which serious scholars are supposed to strive at wikipedia or anywhere? Unless there is agreement as to where we are heading, the arguments can go on indefinitely.”

Mr. Fastenrath: I quite understand the reasons for discouraging original research in the context of constructing Wikipedia and have therefore abstained from any such attempts. I have merely investigated available information and reported what appears to be a factually correct or false.F. Walker 08:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I was not accusing anybody of anything, I was merely contribution to your and Doldrum's discussion of a Wikipedia policy. --Fasten 13:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ongoing discussion

F. Walker: Would you please respond to the latest statements and questions from Doldrums under their corresponding headings above? Please be concise. If we cannot reach an agreement this text might provide useful input for an RFC. --Fasten 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Fastenrath: I’m afraid I was unable to insert my replies right after Mr./Ms. Doldrums remarks. He/she tried to teach me. But I’m hopeless at the computer. I hope all of you will forgive me for giving my replies below in one go. If it is feasible, perhaps one of will kindly place them properly after Mr./Ms. Doldrums remarks. F. Walker

[edit] Suggested rift

The reported differences, both as regards the relationship between the two Acharyas and their policies, are vastly exaggerated. Mr./Ms. Doldrums himself/herself states that the evidence renders such “differences debatable.”

My objection is not one of “perception of the intent of a source.” I object to false reporting of facts. F. Walker

[edit] Did not condemn the destruction

Mr./Ms. doldrums, here did you get the idea that Sri Jayendra Saraswathi wanted to “make use of the fruits of a “condemned” action? I gave the link to an article by Mr. Seed Naqvi (accessible at http://www.indianexpress.com/columnists/saee/20020308.html) where he quotes the Shankaracharya as saying the building a Ram temple illegally would be an insult to Maryada Puroshottam. This, according to your own criteria, substantiates that the expression “black day” is tantamount to condemnation. F. Walker

i got the idea from JS's rediff interview[26], where, after the "black day" remarks he goes on to say "There was finality/closure to the issue on December 6, 1992. It is regrettable, and the majority of Hindus regret that the structure was demolished. But the issue is closed: now there is no sense in retaining the land as an empty space, we should worship Ram there." the last two sentences presumably means that a ram temple should be built in the place of the demolished mosque.
what is "building a ram temple illegally"? is it a reference to the Babri masjid demolition or the property dispute pending before the courts about the adjacent lands? Doldrums 10:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I don’t see how “the last two sentences” can possibly be taken to “presumably mean that a ram temple should be built in the place of the demolished mosque.” To show this clearly in its context, I must quote again extensively Mr. Saeed Naqvi’s interviw of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi (accessible at http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/22inter.htm):

“It is regrettable, and the majority of Hindus regret that the structure was demolished. But the issue is closed: now there is no sense in retaining the land as an empty space, we should worship Ram there. On December 6, a group of Hindus did demolish the structure. But for most Hindus, this was a black day, that it was destroyed thus. There was no clear verdict from the court case. The adjacent lands belong to the Muslim Waqf Board. If the Muslims and the Hindus can get together and donate all the land to the government, the problem will go away. Now there is no more controversy about whether it is Ram or Babri. It is no longer an issue whether it is Ram's place, but only whose land it is. There are many Hindus who have sympathy for Muslim grievances. The best way to turn this black mark into a white mark is to give the land to the government. This will show the world that we can live in harmony. Hindus may even be prepared to go so far as to relinquish their rights to the Kashi and Mathura temples that have been occupied by Muslims, in the interest of the unity and amity of Hindus and Muslims in India. This cannot be settled in court, but only in the heart.” Sri Jayendra Saraswathi clearly states that the Muslims and Hindus should get together and donate all the land to the government and live in harmony. India being a secular state, no temple, mosque or any other building for denominational worship can be built on land belonging to the government. So that is the end of that. Mr./Ms. Doldrums’ “presumption” is thus shown to be erroneous. (As for worship, it is an inner attitude – beyond the dimension of space - which can be had anywhere.) Sri Jayendra Saraswathi has gone even further. He has suggested that Hindus “relinquish their rights to the Kashi and Mathura temples that have been occupied by Muslims, in the interest of the unity and amity of Hindus and Muslims in India.” Moreover, why would the All India Organisation of Imams of Mosques praise Sri Jayendra Saraswathi for his constructive efforts to solve the Ayodhya issue if the Pontiff wanted to replace the mosque with a temple? So what is one to make out of Mr./Ms. Doldrums’ statement that Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s meaning is that a” ram temple should be built in the place of the demolished mosque” ? A careless study of the matter or an intentional and ill-intended misinterpretation? In another article to which I referred, Mr. Saeed Naqvi wrote (accessible at http://www.indianexpress.com/columnists/saee/20020308.html ): Sri Jayendra Saraswathi “told the prime minister (as he did earlier the VHP leaders) that “building a Ram temple illegally was an insult to Maryada Puroshottam”. After a tour of temples in north India he remarked, “There are so many important temples in disrepair. Do we need new temples or is it important to light lamps in great temples lying in neglect?”” Mr./Ms. Doldrums asks: “what is "building a ram temple illegally"? is it a reference to the Babri masjid demolition or the property dispute pending before the courts about the adjacent lands?” But as my earlier quote shows, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi has stated that “the adjacent lands belong to the Muslim Waqf Board.” Therefore, the reference is not to the adjacent lands. It is in reference to the Babri Masjid demolition that Sri Jayendra Saraswathi has said that building a temple in its place would be “an insult to Maryada Puroshottam.”

Whether Mr./Ms. Doldrums likes it or not, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi has called the destruction of the mosque “a black mark” and has ruled against its illegal replacement with a temple. Calling something illegal is condemning it. Therefore, Mr. Viswanathan has indeed made a factual error by saying Sri Jayendra Saraswathi “did not condemn” the destruction of the Babri Masjid. F. Walker 11:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Doldrums: Do you concede that this appears to be a factual error of Mr. Viswanathan? --Fasten 15:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
not particularly. the article in frontline reads "Significantly, Jayendra Saraswathi did not condemn the demolition of the Babri Masji on December 6, 1992." to me, this reads as simple past tense. i.e, JS did not condemn it when it happened (in the "immediate aftermath"). the two candidate condemnations offered are much more recent (about a decade(?) later). i've pointed out issues with the rediff interview, it appears to express regret rather than condemnation. the other candidate is a reporting of a private conversation between JS and a former PM. my understanding of the the frontline article statement is that it refers to public condemnation.
Mr./Ms. Doldrums: Mr. viswanathan's entire article is in the "simple past tense," as you say. It is a global commentary on Sri Jayendra Saraswathi's career prior to 11/11. Such being the case, the Pontiff's views on the Ayodhya issue at any time prior to 11/11 are pertinent. Why do you insist on retaining what was said or not said only at the "immediate aftermath"? F. Walker 11:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
walker has tried to characterise JS's stand on the issue by collating a number of his statements, trying to conclude that JS has made a good faith effort at resolving this issue. i believe that other characterisations of his statements can be made, which interpret JS's statements in a manner much more hostile to the "muslim" stand on the ram janmabhoomi issue(eg. denying the sanctity of the mosque("it's a victory memorial"); handing over the disputed land to the govt. (which at the time was dominated by a "hindutva" party, one which was previously committed to building a ram temple); while the govt. may not be allowed by law to build temples on its land, it can always transfer the land to another owner, (assuming it is given such rights when took over the disputed site). this kind of debate can go on, and is not helpful in resolving what is at issue here - did or did he not condemn the demolition. what i'm looking for is a public speech or interview in which JS says reasonably clearly that the demolition was (morally) wrong or condemns it.
No, I have not "collated;" I have quoted Sri Jayendra Saraswathi's words as reported in several articles by reputed journalists. I have quoted extensively and given each quote's original context. This cannot be called collation. Mr. Viswanathan, on the other hand, proceeds by exclusion of many statements made by Sri Jayendra Saraswathi and selects only the one which fits into the pattern of thought which he falsely attributes to the Pontiff. I have brought in several statements made by Sri Jayendra Saraswathi at different times, thus giving his global views about the matter. But what has Mr. Viswanathan done? Instead of quoting the Pontiff, he has limited himself to a sole "non-fact": "Significantly, SJS did NOT condemn..." Instead of mentioning Sri Jayendra saraswathi's actions towards a peaceful solution of the Ayodhya issue, and instead of telling the reader what the Acharya has said about the matter, Mr. Viswanathan limits the discussion to what the Acharya did not say! Can this be called fair reporting? F. Walker 12:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
"unfair reporting" is not factual error, it is pov. frontline article makes the assertion that JS did not condemn the demolition, as the only counterexamples presented so far has been one "regret" and one "building illegally ... insult" a reported remark made in a private conversation, i stand by the correctness of the frontline article's statement. Doldrums 16:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
finally, i must say, the interpretation that "there is no sense in retaining the land as an empty space, we should worship Ram there." to mean "build a ram temple there" is a lot less convoluted than some of the interpretations of JS's statements that have been offered. Doldrums 04:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
In the same set of quotes, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi has clearly said there is no point in building more temples when so many existing ones are falling in ruins. This, along with his other statements, makes it clear that he does not support replacing the mosque with a temple. F. Walker 11:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
doesn't, in my opinion. and anyway, support or otherwise to building a temple on the site doesn't amount to condemning the destruction of the mosque. Doldrums 16:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Can we agree that Sri Jayendra Saraswathi's quotes are ambiguous on this issue? It doesn't seem important to resolve this ambiguity to decide whether to include the article or not.
Doldrums: You replied --not particularly. the article in frontline reads "Significantly, Jayendra Saraswathi did not condemn the demolition of the Babri Masji on December 6, 1992."-- to my question.
This can be interpreted to mean he didn't, on that date, condemn the demolition or he generally didn't condemn the demolition happening on that date. The latter appears to be the more sensible interpretation. --Fasten 20:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The Babri Masjid was torn down on December 6, 1992. Mr. Viswanathan's remark can be interpreted to mean that Sri Jayendra Saraswathi should have condemned the demolition on that very day and that later condemnations (for example, the following day) were of no value. This interpretation is unfair to Mr. Viswanathan, because it suggests that the journalist is being ridiculously unreasonable by dismissing all criticism subsequent to December 6, 1992. So to be fair to Mr. Viswanathan, we must take him to mean that SJS didn't condemn the demolition in general. But the quotes I have given from various journals at different times show that this is not true. Therefore, the article contains a factual error. F. Walker 09:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that this appears to be a factual error but is this a minor error or should it be seen as a major error, especially when it seems to play in the hands of a certain bias in the article? Doldrums: Please feel free to disagree on the point whether this is an error or not. --Fasten 15:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Praise for the Ayodhya issue

I shall discuss the “association with Hindutva forces” separately at the end, as this requires overall perception of the intent of the article. F. Walker

[edit] Ulterior motives behind the Acharya’s salutary actions

Mr./Ms. Doldrums begs the question here. Here as elsewhere, Mr. Viswanathan’s “facts” and his condemnatory judgments (conveniently attributed to unverifiable sources) contradict each other. Quoting Dalit accusations of indelicacy and impropriety by Sri Jayendra Saraswathi with regard to them does not prove he was trying to rope them in – on the contrary! This would indeed be a strange way to “rope in” someone’s support. F. Walker

r u contesting the fact or the "condemnatory judgement". if fact, tell me why u believe that the quotations in the articles are false. if u disagree with the condemnatory judgement, then what you need to be doing is calling the article pov and balancing its inclusion with other povs. as i have repeatedly pointed out, sources are not removed simply because they are pov. Doldrums 10:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Without meaning the least offense once again, I’m afraid Mr./Ms. Doldrums writing is not clear to me here. He/she talks about “articles.” To my knowledge, in this context we are talking about one article only – the Frontline cover story by Mr. Viswanathan. Mr./Ms. Doldrums writes: “tell me why u believe the quotations in the articles are false.” I’m afraid I don’t see any “quotations” in the article(s). What I see are statements attributed, without quotation marks, to unidentified sources. Who can say whether the statements were made by those “sources” or not? Given this, how can I decide whether they are true or false?
my mistake, statement should read "r u contesting the facts or the "condemnatory judgement". if facts, tell me why u believe that the quotations in the article are false". the quotation refers to the quoted "Dalit accusations of indelicacy and impropriety". these are clearly attributed to "dalit activists" in the article, though not named individually. Doldrums 04:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Viswanathan does not tell us who his "Dalit activists" are. The fact is that immediately after Sri Jayendra Saraswathi's unjustified arrest and detention by the Tamil Nadu authorities, several Dalit organizations strongly protested the arrest. Mr. Viswanathan has chosen to avoid all mention of this, because it does not fit in with the view he wants to project. Nevertheless, what his "activists" supposedly say about "old" Dalits goes a long way to show that some Dalits do appreciate the efforts deployed by the Acharya to help them. Therefore, we can conclude that Mr. Viswanathan's presentation of Dalit views about the Acharya is one-sided and misleading. F. Walker 12:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
one-sidedness is not factual error, it is pov. what statement in the article misleads? Doldrums 16:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, “judgments” must not be taken to be synonymous with points of view. If a judgment is shown to be false, then we cannot accept it simply as POV. There are many ways that a judgment can be false (wrong premises/ correct premises but faulty reasoning/ bias, etc.) I believe I have shown most of Mr. Viswanathan’s judgments to be biased and false. F. Walker 11:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

i point out that a "judgement false by way of bias" is precisely pov. Doldrums 04:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Mr. Viswanathan is a “long-standing writer on dalit affairs” is beside the point.

his standing as a dalit writer is significant in that his view might be considered noteworthy of inclusion. Doldrums 10:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
If the entire article was about Dalits you would have had a point. But this is not the case. Out of seven pages only two paragraphs concern Dalits. Therefore, even if Mr. Viswanathan has a standing as a writer on Dalit affairs, it is of little pertinence for the article as a whole. F. Walker 11:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
If Mr. Viswanathan is a regular writer for the magazine and the magazine is a noteworthy publication maybe we can agree that his expertise is not at question as long as his article isn't contradicting other articles significantly and the style of the article itself is not dubious. Questioning Mr. Viswanathan's expertise puts the burden of proof on the questioner. --Fasten 15:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
the author's standing as a writer on dalit affairs is pertinent in evaluating that part of the article that specifically addresses JS's relations with dalits. Doldrums 04:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I have commented above on the author's one-sided account of Sri Jayendra saraswathi's relations with Dalits. Such one-sided reporting is all the less excusable since Mr. Viswanathan is said to be a specialist on Dalit affairs! F. Walker 12:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe I have taken on "the burden of proof" by ushering in other articles (notably by Mr. seed Naqvi) with which Mr. Viswanathan's assertions stand in contradiction. Moreover, I have shown that the judgments expressed in the Frontline article, instead of ensuing from the facts sighted by Mr. Viswanathan himself, more often than not contradict those facts. I do not know what the Wiki policy is on self-contradiction, but they are considered damning in scholarly debates worthy of the name. F. Walker 16:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Please note that I was only referring to critizising Mr. Viswanathan solely on the basis of lack of evidence for his expertise in the matter. The (disputed) shortcomings of his article were not the subject of my remark. --Fasten 17:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welfare and social activities ... close to all kinds of undesirable elements

“Editorial scrutiny” does not turn misreporting into facts. Material from “established news sources” must not be accepted as fact on blind faith. Wiki editors must do their job of verification. We all know that the media are not always impartial and objective. Mr./Ms. Doldrums, please visit http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1604549,0008.htm.

Wiki editors are not expected to engage in original research to contradict established news sources. --Fasten 15:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
It need not be "original research." It can be cross-checking with other sources, as those to which I have referred in countering Mr. Viswanathan's assertions. F. Walker 15:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The headline says in big bold letters: “Cong, BJP should bring Ram temple bill in Parliament: Kanchi seer”.

Then you read the article and, to your astonishment, the entire article is about the Shankaracharya of Puri, Sri Nishchalanand Saraswati. Why the Kanchi Acharya’s name appears in the headline is anybody’s guess. (My own guess is that both reporter and editor totally lack Hindu culture. Having vaguely heard about the Kanchi affair, they mix up various Shankaracharyas). And yet, Mr./Ms. Doldrums, “Hindustan Times” is “mainstream media” and the article has been submitted to “editorial scrutiny.”

indeed, please point out such a verifiable error in the frontline article and u've won the argument. Doldrums 10:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Doldrums: That's what we are doing here. The current discussion is based on this list of points by F. Walker, critizising the frontline article. It is your objective to refute these points. I would, however, ask both of you to aim for a consensus instead of pursuing your own objectives. --Fasten 16:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
accept that that is what we're trying to do here. am merely pointing out that i do not believe that we have infact found a clear factual error so far. Doldrums 05:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You mention Mr. Ravi Subramanian who is “into” real-estate business, as you put it. He is indeed a building contractor. What of it? The Mutt had engaged the services of this man, like that of many other contractors, to build schools and other buildings. Does this justify suspecting the institution of being close to “undesirable elements? Do other Mutts in India engage saints and sadhus for construction work?

ravi subramanian and some of his real-estate pals are currently facing trials on various criminal charges (icluding murder, if am not mistaken). presumably that makes them "undesirable elements" for a religious order to associate itself with. Doldrums 10:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr./Ms. Doldrums, you are a civilized person living in a civilized country. In civilized countries people are considered innocent until proven guilty. In its verdict of 26 October 2005 ordering the transfer of the case out of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court of India reprimanded the Tamil Nadu authorities for going to extraordinary lengths to prevent the accused in the Sankararaman murder case – and this includes “Ravi Subramanian and his pals,” as you ungraciously put it – from defending themselves. The Court’s pronouncements severely chastised the Tamil Nadu Government machinery for attempting to deprive the Shankaracharya and other accused of proper legal defense, launching persecution against journalists, lawyers and members of the civil society “merely because they expressed some dissent against the arrest of the seer (Shankaracharya),”. The same “machinery” was found by the Court to have created “a fear psychosis in the minds of the people,” which could discourage them from testifying impartially.
As for the Tamil Nadu police, Human rights Watch and several other international organisations have denounced them for torture, murder, rape, and confessions obtained under duress. (Please visit http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/india/India994-07.htm.) For your information, on his arrest Mr. Ravi Subramanian’s lawyer was mysteriously dismissed, and throughout his detention he has been held in solitary confinement. Your contemptuous reference to “Ravi Subramanian and his pals” only shows that you ignore the fact the presumption of innocence prior to having been found guilty is a basic human right, for denial of which one can be arraigned before the International Tribunal at The Hague. By writing in such a manner you bring Wiki discussions to a level inadmissibly below civilized norms.
Even assuming for the moment that Mr. Ravi Subramanian was guilty, this does not justify Mr. Viswanathan’s assertion - attributed once again to “some observers” – according to which the Kanchi Mutt’s vast range of social and welfare activities are drawn towards “undesirable elements.” Mr./Ms. Doldrums, since you are acquainted with Aristotelian logic, and I am glad of it, you must know that the reasoning here can only be inductive and not deductive. In inductive logic one points to a large number of occurrences (A) which in some way involve B. Then confronted with A’, one concludes that it, too, must involve B.
Shankara Mutt’s social, medical and welfare activities employ, in one capacity or another, several thousand people. Your inductive reasoning here gives:

Several thousand people work for Shankara Matham. One such person is alleged by the police to be a criminal. Therefore, Shankara Matham has dealings with “undesirable elements.”

I don't quite follow you here. The person is not an arbitrary person but a person in an important office.
The exact wording is:
All these deals have been struck in the name of public trusts.
Some observers feel that these activities have the potential to
take the mutt close to all kinds of undesirable elements.
This isn't even related to the person of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi. --Fasten 18:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Fastenrath: We are not talking about Sri Jayendra Saraswathi here; we are talking about Mr. Ravi Suramanian, the building contractor, who is one of the accused in the Sankararaman murder case. Mr./Ms. Doldrums had cited the name of this person to justify Mr. Viswanathan's allegation that, according to some "observers," the Kanchi Mutt, of which Sri Jayendra Saraswathi is the head, was close to "undesirable elements." I have pointed out that for its social, educational, medical and welfare activities, the Kanchi Mutt relies on several thousand people. Even if one of these people, i.e., Mr. Ravi Subramanian, happens to be a criminal -which has not been proven, so that for the time being he must be assumed to be innocent - this does not statistically justify associating the Mutt with "undesirable elements," as the Frontline article does. F. Walker 22:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Relying on such ridiculous reasoning based on tenuous declarations attributed to unidentified sources only goes to show that Mr. Viswanathan objective, here as in other matters, is to vilify Sri Jayendra Saraswathi and the institution he heads.F. Walker 11:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Some of your criticism concerning the article may be valid but here you are distorting its content. --Fasten 18:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Fastenrath: The reasoning can only be inductive here. In inductive logic, the major premiss is based on the observation of a great number of occurances where "A" is always accompanied or followed by "B." The minor premiss says something like: "X" is "A." Then the conclusion is that "X" being "A," it too must be accompanied or followed by "B." But Mr./Ms. Doldrums' reasoning is false, because he/she is genralizing on the basis of a single instance of unlawful activity (allegedly by Mr. Ravis Subramanian)to justify the suggested link between the Kanchi Mutt and "undesirable elements." Mr. Viswanathan's declarations (about links to undesirable elements) are tenuous because they are hypothetically stated and attributed to unidentified sources. As for Mr. Viswanathan's motives and objectives, the fact is that time and again he makes an unfavorable judgment about Sri Jayendra Saraswathi about matters where the facts, as related by Mr. Viswanathan himself, are to Sri Jayendra Saraswathi's credit(for example, building hospitals, schools and universities). I'm afraid it is Mr. Viswanathan who distorts, as you say, the facts to fit them into his negative presentation of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi and his work.F. Walker 22:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The whole reasoning is based on a distorted view of the article. It is irrelevant. --Fasten 15:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Fastenrath: It is not clear to me if you are referring to my reasoning or that of Mr./Ms. Doldrums. If the former, please kindly explain why my view of the article is distorted and what makes the reasoning irrelevant. I ask this because earlier on you had not understood that the person Mr./Ms. Doldrum's and I were talking about at this juncture was not Sri Jayendra Saraswathi but Mr. Ravi Subramanian. This may explain why you speak of distortion and irrelevancy in reasoning. F. Walker 19:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up. I had indeed misunderstood the argumentation. The article does, however, not make mention of the gentleman. What makes you assume he is the unrevealed reason for the assessment that the mutt may be getting close to undesirable elements? I don't quite follow. --Fasten 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Fastenrath: As you have observed, the article does not mention Mr. Ravi Subramanian. Nor did I introduce his name into the debate. It was Mr./Ms. Doldrums who referred to this gentleman in an attempt to justify Mr. Viswanathan's mudslinging at the Mutt and Sri Jayendra Saraswathi indirectly. I say "indirectly" because Mr. Viswanathan attributes once again to "some observers" his unfounded allegation that the Mutt has connections with "undesirable elements." F. Walker 12:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
the frontline article states that "Some observers feel" that "these activities have the potential to take the mutt close to all kinds of undesirable elements". ravi and co. needn't necessarily have to be found guilty, for them to be regarded as "undesirable", in the view of certain observers. people may believe that the kind of attention the mutt is getting is undesirable, whether or not, the accusations are true. if i find opinions (voiced in letters to editors and such) of people who believe that the the situation the mutt finds itself now, because of its links to ravi and co., is undesirable, is that sufficient to "prove" the article right? Doldrums 05:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
That wouldn't be exactly a proof, it could as well be a case of selective perception, either because somebody is supplying the information or because of your choice of sources. What kind of source would you consider adequate F. Walker? Myself, I think letters to the editor aren't quite sufficient. --Fasten 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It is common knowledge that editors choose to publish some letters from the public and disregard others. Mr. Viswanathan has indeed indulged in "selective perception." He does not tell us who his "observers" are. As for Mr./Ms. Doldrums, he/she is upholding a genaralization about the Mutt's "closeness" to undesirable elements merely on the basis of one person - Mr. Ravi Subramanian, the building contractor. Please re-read the sentence from the article quoted above by Mr./Ms. Doldrums. "Some observers feel" that "these activities have the potential to..." In other words, Mr. Viswanathan is suggesting in a roundabout way that the Kanchi Mutt should not build schools, hospitals, etc., because of a "potential" danger of having one or two "undesirable elements" among the several thousand people engaged in the Mutt's various social, educational, medical and welfare activities. Thus, Mr. Viswanathan manages to associate, in the mind of his readers, deeds which in themselves are highly commendable with "undesirable elements." F. Walker 12:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
what, in all this, amounts to factual error? Doldrums
This is not a factual error but there is a noticeable bias, wouldn't you agree, Doldrums? --Fasten 20:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unverifiable sources

Let us not argue over words. Verifiability is for the sake of objectivity and truth. In the end, it all comes to the same thing.


I list below the factual errors in the Frontline article as requested by Mr./Ms. Doldrums:


We have already seen that in a space of not altogether seven pages supposedly about the career of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, Mr. Viswanathan has devoted three pages to opposing Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi’s anti-communal views to Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s alleged commitment to Hindu communalism. The contrast - even in the manner of addressing the two Acharyas and the size of their respective pictures – is not innocent. It is obvious that Mr. Viswanathan is out to instill dislike in the mind of the reader for the person and policies of the younger Acharya. He is made out to be a Hindu nationalist rightist and responsible for communal strife in Tamil Nadu.

balance of coverage, forms of address, disrespect are not factual errors. article does not say that he is a "Hindu nationalist rightist and responsible for communal strife in Tamil Nadu".
if u want to show a factual error, this is the way to do it:
  • Article says "X".
  • "X" is false.
  • reason "X" is false.
this is not the way to do it.
  • Article says "X".
  • "Y" is false.
  • reason "Y" is false.

But the facts, some of which – paradoxically enough – are reported by Mr. Viswanathan himself, contradict his assertions. The Paramacharya requested Sri Jayendra Saraswathi to return to the Matham and reinstated him as Shankaracharya; Sri Jayendra Saraswathi launched his Jana Kalyan Jana Jagaran movement with the blessings of the Paramacharya; the aim of the movement was “service to the people” and not just to the Hindus; and the movement was open to people of other faiths and reportedly had some Christian and Muslim members.

article correctly states these facts. no dispute hereDoldrums 11:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
If the facts and the judgments stand in contradiction to each other, then such judgments are worse than simple errors of fact. Wrong judgments, especially when they seem to be biased, must not be confused with POVs. The Frontline article states facts then forms judgments which do not flow from the facts. Therefore, I say once again that the link to it ought to be removed.F. Walker 11:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that the difference in the manner of leadership of the two Shankaracharyas was due not so much to a difference in policy as to the changing times. Mr. Viswanathan himself has reported the conversion campaigns by both Muslims and Christians in certain parts of Tamil Nadu. It would have been more pertinent to interpret some of Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s declarations in the light of these happenings rather than simply cite them as a shift in Mutt leadership and policy.

if other interpretations of the facts reported by the article are possible, and are notable, they can be presented in the wiki article. there is no reason to exclude this interpretation just because others are possible and more to your liking. Doldrums 11:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Viswanathan asserts that Sri Jayendra Saraswathi adhered to the policy of such movements as the VHP and the RSS. I had already given links to several articles contradicting this view.

where in the article does it say "Sri Jayendra Saraswathi adhered to the policy of such movements as the VHP and the RSS"? Doldrums 11:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
This departure by Jayendra Saraswathi from the policy line drawn by the Paramacharya, which in fact began as early as the mid-1990s though in a small way, steadily grew in scale after the Paramacharya passed away in 1994. The mutt's activities, as a result, extended to newer fields, often at the cost of its traditional reputation. The political activities of the mutt also progressively increased in the last few years.
This is not exactly adherance to a policy but it may hint at a convergence of interests. --Fasten 20:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
if this is the disputed statement, then what, in it, is contested? the article points out some of these political links ("blessings" for party activities, his role in issues with political ramifications - ram janmabhoomi, legal restrictions on proselytising, mutt activities in services and social reform).
article points out issues where JS's views coincide with "hindutva" views, are these in dispute or is the article's judgements (for instance, the one quoted by fasten above) disputed? Doldrums 05:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Doldrums 05:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Mr./Ms. Doldrums seems to have overlooked the relevant passages, I am obliged to quote them somewhat extensively:

1) Saeed Naqvi in the Indian Express (accessible at http://www.indianexpress.com/columnists/saee/20020308.html):

Why am I so positive about the Shankaracharya’s intervention? For five years I edited a newspaper chain from Chennai where I was acquainted with the present Shankaracharya’s late guru, the great Paramacharya, a saint and a scholar. One of his charming suggestions to every Muslim who called on him was to visit the mosque adjacent to his abode in Kanchi. Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati is part of that tolerant tradition. After the fall of the Babri Masjid some RSS leaders drafted for him a statement which they thought would please him. He put a pencil through the statement and said: “Hindus and Muslims must live in this country like Ram and Lakshman.

He told the prime minister (as he did earlier the VHP leaders) that “building a Ram temple illegally was an insult to Maryada Puroshottam”. After a tour of temples in north India he remarked, “There are so many important temples in disrepair. Do we need new temples or is it important to light lamps in great temples lying in neglect?””

2) Saeed Naqvi in another article in the Indian Express, (accessible at http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=26085):

This is not the Shankaracharya’s first effort at peace. He had taken such an initiative in March 2002. Important players, including VHP leader Ashok Singhal, had thrown something resembling a ginger fit and the effort was stalled.

3) Debarshish Mukerji in The Week (accessible at http://www.theweek.com/23jul06/cover.htm):

From June 9, a day after the Sankaracharya revealed he had been making efforts to resolve Ayodhya, the VHP diatribe against him - and the government for encouraging him - has been unceasing. VHP President Ashok Singhal compared the Sankaracharya's suggestions to "serving halwa in a commode". "All kinds of secret deals are being made," he charged, "but Hindu society will not tolerate any compromise with its interests.

Pure panic appeared to overtake the VHP as Singhal and Pravin Togadia rushed to RSS supremo K. Sudarshan to complain; Singhal flew down to Kanchipuram to warn the Sankaracharya against interfering; a bunch of pro-VHP sadhus passed a resolution in Ayodhya urging the Sankaracharya to abandon his efforts; a national executive was convened in Raipur on June 26 to find ways to meet the challenge. Fortunately for the VHP, the RSS lent it complete support. "No solution to Ayodhya is possible without the involvement of the VHP," declared RSS spokesman Ram Madhav. "The VHP's views must be accommodated."”

In view of these facts, reported by reputed journalists in mainstream media, Mr./Ms Doldrums cannot maintain:

[edit] use of the fruit’s of a “condemned” action

1) That Sri Jayendra Saraswathi was willing “to make use of the fruit’s of a “condemned” action” (as Mr./Ms. Doldrums wrote above). For, Saeed Naqvi reports the Shankaracharya as having “told the prime minister (as he did earlier the VHP leaders) that ‘building a Ram temple illegally was an insult to Maryada Puroshottam.’”

i've commented on this above. Doldrums 11:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hindu nationalist

2) That Sri Jayendra Saraswathi is a Hindu nationalist out to promote the interests of his own community at the expense of those of other communities. For, he has said: “Hindus and Muslims must live in this country like Ram and Lakshman.” The Rediff interview, too, quotes the Shankaracharya as urging give-and-take and mutual consideration and respect.

where does the article say "Jayendra Saraswathi is a Hindu nationalist out to promote the interests of his own community at the expense of those of other communities"? Doldrums 11:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you please comment briefly on the politics of All_India_Anna_Dravida_Munnetra_Kazhagam and Bharatiya Janata Party for an outsider like me? I would like to hear both sides. --Fasten 20:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Please enlighten me also briefly what both of you understand under the term Hindutva forces. --Fasten 20:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Fastenrath: Politics, as such, is not my field and I would rather leave the answer to your request to other contributors here. I visited India yearly for nearly two decades in connection with my university research on various Indian philosophies and religions. This is how I became acquainted with the Kanchi Mutt. This also is why I have been following closely the murder allegations. F. Walker 12:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] policies coincided with those of the VHP and the RSS on the Ayodhya issue

3) That Sri Jayendra Saraswathi’s policies coincided with those of the VHP and the RSS on the Ayodhya issue. This is limpidly clear from the three quotes above, where VHP and RSS leaders are shown to be vigorously opposed to the Shankaracharya’s efforts at solving the Ayodhya issue.

where does the article say "Jayendra Saraswathi’s policies coincided with those of the VHP and the RSS on the Ayodhya issue"? Doldrums 11:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr./Ms. Doldrums asks: “where in the article does it say "Sri Jayendra Saraswathi adhered to the policy of such movements as the VHP and the RSS"?” And again he/she asks: “where does the article say "Jayendra Saraswathi is a Hindu nationalist out to promote the interests of his own community at the expense of those of other communities"?
Mr. Viswanathan does not say these things word for word. But this is the underlying theme of his entire article. Throughout he associates Sri Jayendra Saraswathi with “Hindutva forces.” And what are “Hindutva forces” if not the VHP and the RSS? Mr. Viswanathan reports Sri Jayendra Saraswathi as expressing “the familiar themes of the Hindutva forces;” he mentions “the series of "Hindu resurgence" meetings organised by Hindutva forces “reportedly with the blessings of Jayendra Saraswathi;” elsewhere he claims that the Pontiff was “echoing the stand of the Hindutva forces;” and he adds that “Jayendra Saraswathi's presence in politics, particularly in Hindutva politics,” became more and more visible.
At 11:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC), you yourself, Mr./Ms. Doldrums, wrote: “JS who associates himself with hindutva forces.” And now you come and ask: “where does the article say "Jayendra Saraswathi is a Hindu nationalist out to promote the interests of his own community at the expense of those of other communities"? The answer is: If, according to Mr. Viswanathan, being involved in “Hindutva forces” is not Hindu nationalism and communalism, then what is the basic contention of the article? Communalists put the interests of their own community before the interests of other communities. But as the quotes show, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi's aim has been to maintain peace and harmony between Hindus and Muslims. Therefore, Mr. Viswanathan has made a factual error in making SJS out to be a communalist as he himself (Mr. Viswanathan) understands the word. F. Walker 11:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

All this goes to show that the Frontline article is factually wrong in depicting Sri Jayendra Saraswathi as a Hindu communalist, wrong also in asserting that “he did not condemn the demolition of the Babri Masjid.”

condemnation issue has been addressed under its own heading. Doldrums 11:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] striking business deals

Thirdly, the article is factually wrong in accusing Sri Jayendra Saraswathi of “striking business deals” when in fact the Pontiff put himself to great pains to build and maintain hospitals, dispensaries, homes for the aged, welfare centers for the needy, some 50 schools and a university. The irony again is that Mr. Viswanathan does not deny these achievements; he himself makes reference to a “big multi-specialty hospital” and a “reputed hospital for childcare.” But as usual, after having mentioned some exceptional achievement, he proceeds to downgrade it by talk of “deals struck in the name of public trusts” and alleged proximity to “undesirable elements.”

institutions such as a hospital, school .. etc all have a business aspect to thier functioning(buildngs to be built, equipment to be purchased ... etc), even if they are non-profit/charitable. further, some of these hospitals do provide commercial healthcare services in addition to thier charitable work. "business deals" have to be struck to do all these. they don't happen by simply waving a magic staff. they are struck in the name of public trusts. they do expose the mutt to commercial operations in the real world, which can be undesirable (if for eg., the builders the mutt is dealing with are accused of criminal offenses.) Doldrums 11:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr./Ms. Doldrums, your dictionary seems to furnish only the primary or literal meaning of words and totally neglects secondary or figurative uses. "To strike a deal" as used in this context by Mr. Viswanathan has very pejorative connotations. The same remark applies to his phrase "in the name of public trusts," the insinuation being that although they are in the name of public trusts, there are other aims behind it. All this becomes more evident when the reader reaches the punch line, "undesirable elements. F. Walker 12:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
F. Walker: please refrain from provoking language. The reference to Doldrum's dictionary is not adequate. --Fasten 20:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Fasternath: No disrespect was meant, only surprise that Mr./Ms. Doldrums, who is so particular about selected dictionary definitons and differences between such terms as “condemnation” and “regret,” etc., should not be aware of the connotations of idiomatic expressions such as “to strike a deal” and “to rope in.” Please note also that if I have insisted somewhat heavy-handedly on distinctions between various types of logical reasoning, it is to show that formal logic is not limited to syllogisms, as Mr./Ms. Doldrums seems to suggest. F. Walker 19:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dalits

Fourthly, with respect to Dalits, too, the article presents the facts in a totally distorted manner. The author does allude to the Shankaracharya’s efforts – innovative in the Indian historical context - to integrate the Dalits socially, religiously and professionally. But he alleges that these actions where taken so as to “rope in” the Dalits. Instead of presenting facts, Mr. Viswanathan passes judgment on Sri Jayendra Saraswathi and casts doubts as to his ulterior motives and personal ambitions. What if the Pontiff used the word “Harijan” (meaning children of God), coined by that great defender of Dalits, Mahatma Gandhi himself? It is true that historically Dalits were not allowed into upper caste temples on the pretense that they were “impure.” Sri Jayendra Saraswathi has repeatedly stated that they should be allowed into all temples. It is possible that he may have advised them to pay particular attention to cleanliness and hygiene so that their enemies could no longer use physical “impurity” as an excuse to bar them entry into temples. Once again, Mr. Viswanathan has lifted certain elements out of context instead of viewing them in their historical and socio-cultural settings.

if the presentation of facts is in a distorted manner tantamount to a factual error, show me where it has been done in the article. passing judgement is not a factual error. it is pov, and pov by itself is not enough to remove a source. the author is not required to view events in the historical and socio-cultural context u like, there are plenty of other contexts he can choose from, not the least of which is the dalit perspective. Doldrums 11:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Finally, the article erroneously associates Sri Jayendra Saraswathi with communal disturbances in the State of Tamil Nadu. I, as well as another editor, have already given the links accessing Human Rights Watch reports identifying the real culprits behind such communal strife.

article states that "a series of "Hindu resurgence" meetings organised by these organisations reportedly had the blessings of Jayendra Saraswathi". is this what u are contesting? Doldrums 11:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The above factual errors, together with the general bias in tone and the systematic reference to unverifiable sources, render the removal of the link imperative. F. Walker 20:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

i dont' see any factual errors so far. general bias is well within journalistic limits. unverifiable statements are few and clearly identified. facts & opinions contrary to the supposed bias are presented to balance coverage. i see no reason for removing the source. Doldrums 11:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Doldrums: Do you concede that the use of the term rope in could be seen as inadequate? --Fasten 20:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
the article points out that JS is offering assistance to dalits and reports that some of his attempts at reconciliation with dalits run against the grain of dalit self-assertion ("harijan", calling on them to be clean and to bathe). he states the opposition and suspicion that some dalit activists have for JS's actions. so i think he has made a reasonable case for calling into question JS's motives - is JS interested in dalit welfare (then why does he go against their perception of themselves and their welfare) or only in mobilising thier support. while such judgements are debatable, i do not see factual inaccuracy in it. Doldrums 05:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Viswanathan uses the expression "to rope in" several paragraphs before mentioning the feelings of "Dalit activists" about Sri Jayendra Saraswathi. He is speaking in his own name when he talks of SJS attempting to rope in the Dalits. Moreover, he has chosen to highlight the views of "some Dalits" and to leave umentioned the views of other Dalits who support the Acharya. Therefore, it is not SJS's "motives" but those of Mr. Viswanathan which should be called into question. F. Walker 12:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"several paragraphs"? i quote from the article,

Keen to rope in their support, the pontiff took steps in recent years to appease this section through welfare activities. He visited slums and advised Dalits, who have been segregated for centuries on the grounds that they are "polluted", on the need to be "clean and hygienic". Dalit activists say that Dalits, with high awareness about their rights, would not be taken in by such temptations as assistance and concessions, except the aged and the infirm who are accustomed to living as dependants of caste Hindus.

.

Doldrums 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I can only repeat: If the facts and the judgments stand in contradiction to each other, then such judgments are worse than simple errors of fact. Wrong judgments, especially when biased, must not be confused with POVs. The Frontline article states facts then forms judgments which do not flow from the facts. Therefore, I say once again that the link to it ought to be removed. F. Walker 12:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

F. Walker: I don't quite agree. The author offers conclusions and fails to give detailed information about his sources or detail the facts from which he draws the conclusions. I did not yet notice an important fact that was in contradiction to the conclusions offered by the author. --Fasten 21:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Doldrums: Do you concede that the use of the term rope in could be seen as inadequate? --Fasten 21:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ongoing discussion

Considering the length of your reply I just inserted headlines into your text, I think they allow easy reference to the earlier headlines of the same names. Doldrums, would you either reply below the headlines or use the same headlines in your reply? I allowed myself to insert a pseudo-signature (F. Walker) behind the individual headlines to make sure the author is apparent. In case of an RFC this text may receive further scrutiny. --Fasten 16:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

F. Walker: You mentioned that you were having difficulties to insert text where required. On the right side of the text you find small boxes labeled edit. When you click on one of these edit boxes you can edit the text following that box and until the next box. You should simply append your own text at the end of that text. You can use the ':' colon to indent your text. It is customary to use one colon more than the previous author used. If you think there are too many colons, so the text would be aligned too much to the right side you can also remove colons or begin with no colons at all. If you indent text you have to indent after every single new line that you explicitly start with the return key. If you don't use return you don't have to indent, as the text will be wrapped around with indentation. The colon(s) must be the first character(s) in the new line after hitting return. --Fasten 16:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Fastenrath: Thank you for taking the trouble to explain to me how one inserts comments. This is a test. If I succeed, I shall follow the method from now on. F. Walker 11:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Doldrums: Would you please restrict replies to the end of paragraphs? F.Walker stated clearly that replies within his text are difficult to read and can disrupt his text in a way that is not acceptable. For further discussion it would be nice if you could respect that.

F. Walker: It's your turn. Please reply below. Please feel free to insert new headlines below the prepared structure as required. The previous reply links allow to conveniently navigate to the last reply under the previous ongoing discussion section. --Fasten 20:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] suggested rift

previous reply

[edit] did not condemn the destruction

previous reply

[edit] praise for the Ayodhya issue

previous reply

[edit] ulterior motives behind the Acharya’s salutary actions

previous reply

[edit] welfare and social activities ... close to all kinds of undesirable elements

[edit] unverifiable sources

previous reply

See also: WP:WEASEL

[edit] further comments

Mr. Fastenrath: Please forgive me for being repetitive. I was obliged to quote again extensively to show Mr./Ms. Doldrums’ misinterpretations. My arguments are lengthy because whenever I paraphrase, this gentleman/lady comes back and asks “where did the author say this?” He/she refuses to accept that statements must be interpreted globally and not sentence by sentence. F. Walker 12:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The dispute whether to interpret statements globally or sentence by sentence seems irrelevant to me; both does have its place. Please address Doldrums directly with your criticism. All I can offer is to mediate if you can't find a solution that suits both of you. Asking me to adopt either position is beside the point. --Fasten 14:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Fastenrath: The "dispute" is not as to whether to interpret statements globally or sentence by sentence. Both indeed do have their place. I was not asking you to adopt either position. My point was that individual sentences or paragraphs must be interpreted not in isolation but as part of an organic whole: the entire text.
I have addressed Mr./Ms. doldrums both with regard to specific points and to the article as a whole. My replies are inserted above right after Mr./Ms. Doldrums' remarks, since that is the procedure here.F. Walker 17:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, feel free to use the new headlines above when the discussion gets tangled. --Fasten 10:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

this page is very biased towards the pontiff - even from the viewpoint of someone like me who is pretty neutral. Does anyone know how to turn on the biased sign for this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:69.243.233.226 (talk • contribs).

You can state that the article is biased by adding the {{POV}} notice to the article. For similar notices please have a look at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes. If you do not explain what is wrong with the article the notice is likely to be removed, however. I recommend that you explain here on the talk page what disturbs you about the article and maybe the other editors will have something to say to that. If there is general agreement to your view the article can be modified accordingly or the POV notice can be added. You are, of course, also free to modify the article yourself. As we have an ongoing discussion about the article I recommend you join the discussion instead of editing the article without prior discussion. --Fasten talk/med 15:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm closing the mediation case due to inactivity. --Fasten 13:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/y/Talk%7EJayendra_Saraswathi_3e89.html"